The Quadrilemma
Who should be in charge in marriage? It seems there are only four possible options:
1. No one should be in charge
2. Both people should be in charge
3. The Woman should be in charge
4. The Man should be in charge
Is There Any Way Out of The Quadrilemma?
Communication and Love?
Why do we need to talk about authority in marriage? Relationships are built on love and communication – Couples should listen respectfully to each other and try their best to agree.
Of course. But what if they do this, but still don’t agree?
What if, for example, there is a disagreement over whether the kids should go to public school or be put in a private religious school? The husband and wife talk it out. They listen respectfully to each other. But in the end, though they love each other, they still disagree.
You might say they should have talked about this before getting married. Sure… but can couples foresee all future disagreements?
No, they cannot. So what do they do? Does the child go to public or private school? Who has the final say?
In the end, they face The Quadrilemma.
Spiritual Authority Only?
Perhaps though one partner has a sort of authority, but only a spiritual or symbolic authority. This Leader can lead by example or exhortation, but cannot command.
Consider a relatively trivial example of what the family will eat for dinner. Should they go out for Chinese, as the husband wants, or get Chickfila, which the wife wants?
They should each prefer what the other wants, you might say. Perhaps… but which dinner do they get? Is it the Leader’s job to choose what the Follower wants, out of love? Always? Or do they have to take turns? To raise the stakes a bit, can the Leader in the relationship tell the Follower to make dinner that night? What if the Follower doesn’t want to make dinner?
In what sense is authority real if it is in practice just suggestions subject to the veto of the whims and procedural requirements of the Follower, or always results in what the Follower wants? Is this leadership without the ability to command and the duty to obey real leadership or leadership in name only?
The Quadrilemma remains.
Different Personalities, Skills, and Styles?
Ok but everyone’s relationship looks different. Sometimes a man is more laid back and the woman more outgoing. What if one partner is better able to do certain things than the other? What if the couple have methods for resolving conflict and running a household that are specific and unique to them?
All of this is of course true and not only possible but likely. But none of it escapes The Quadrilemma. A Leader can be more hands on, ruling directly. Or the Leader can delegate and veto, ruling indirectly. But either the man is the Leader. Or the woman. Or neither. Or both try to lead.
And if you don’t decide which of the four options you want, you will simply slide into one of the four that you did not consciously choose.
The Authority in Marriage Quadrilemma is inescapable.
Anarchy and Power Struggle
So what is the solution to the Quadrilemma? Well, it seems like it can be broken down into a series of two dilemmas:
1. First, should someone be in charge?
2. Second, if so, who should it be?
No One in Charge? Nature Abhors a Vacuum
Perhaps no one should be in charge. After all, marriage is a partnership, and partnerships should be 50/50. But now we encounter two problems, because nature abhors a vacuum.
First, in any decision that is made, authority is exercised. Therefore, unless the couple makes each and every decision jointly, there is a constant danger that the couple will slide into one partner becoming the leader, which is what we’re trying to avoid.
Second, remember our examples from above – what if there’s a disagreement?
Well, like in a business partnership, you can just dissolve the partnership, no problem. Two individuals with their own separate and irreconcilable goals going their separate ways.
Except marriage is not like a business partnership, easily dissolvable because it’s all just money. Marriage is supposed to be two souls becoming one flesh, united in a common purpose – Why get married otherwise? In any case, dissolution would represent a failure of the marriage, not a success.
So if we can’t just dissolve the partnership, how do we resolve the disagreement? Well, since no one is explicitly in charge, enter the power struggle.
Both People in Charge? Power Struggle
You must fight. And in the end, one partner must win and the other must yield. You can try to be loving. You can do your best to listen to each other. But if you still disagree, you must fight until someone yields.
The reason relationships where neither party is in charge or both parties attempt to take charge (really two ways of saying the same thing) incentivize fights is because the outcome is uncertain. One party must win in the end, and it is the conflict itself that decides which party that is, rather than predetermined roles.
No one likes this. No one. Nor does fighting incentivize or lead to better outcomes. If it doesn’t lead to divorce, it will either simply spawn more fights or lead to one side surrendering and giving up—hurt, resentful, and demoralized—for the sake of peace. Not necessarily because it was the right decision, but simply to stop the fighting.
But the mantle of “leadership” the “victor” assumes, unlike that in a relationship with predetermined roles, truly is based on domination rather than consent. And it is never truly secure, always on the lookout for rebellion, without any of the benefits of leadership and submission, except that of a tenuous peace.
Romance Is Trust
But what if there was a pre-determined agreed upon Leader in the marriage? One who could settle disputes definitively, getting rid of the need for fights and power struggles, while providing direction to the relationship? Wouldn’t that be dangerous?
Perhaps. But here we see the premise of modern relationships (and why they largely suck) – they are premised on a lack of trust. But Romance is Trust. You cannot have romance without trust.
So what if there was a Leader in marriage who loved you? A Leader who wanted nothing but the best for you? A Leader that you chose and who you trusted completely?
Well sure, that might make things a bit better. But what if this Leader was wrong about something and wanted to make a bad decision? And the Follower knew the Leader was wrong and that it was a bad decision? Wouldn’t this mean the Follower would have to follow a bad decision?
So what? We know the Leader will make mistakes sometimes. But that’s ok, because the Follower isn’t perfect either; no one is guaranteed to be always right when making prudential decisions.
So what should be done to voice disagreement in a marriage where there is an agreed upon hierarchy based on romantic trust? Is there another way that does not involve fighting and power struggle?
The Chief Counselor and The King with The Crown.
Yes, there is another way. Consider for a moment the following vision for a relationship, where the Follower is like a Chief Counselor to a King with a Crown.
Imagine this Chief Counselor as the chief advisor of the kingdom. He or she advises the King, voices his or her concerns, and makes known the wants and needs of the realm, including his or her own. The Chief Counselor can, and is at times expected to, provide respectful criticism and strong disagreement. For the Chief Counselor’s job is not only to support The King with The Crown, but to help him make the best decision possible.
In this analogy, the Leader of the relationship has real authority to rule, and is simply not the tie-breaking vote in a democracy, as if the husband and wife were rival political parties. Nor is the Leader simply an appellate court bound to follow the procedural rules and jurisdictional limits created by the Follower. There is no Separation of Powers here, for if ambition was set to counteract ambition we would be back in Anarchy and Power Struggle, where no one is in charge and no one is ultimately responsible.
Indeed, if you want good outcomes someone must be responsible for those outcomes. You cannot have Responsibility without Authority, for Authority is what gives Responsibility.
Heavy is The Crown, as they say, but the Chief Counselor’s job is to make it lighter. The clear hierarchy in this model actually provides the relationship with the security to have healthy disagreements, because those disagreements don’t threaten the authority structure. The roles of Leader and Follower create a safe space for disagreement because the Leader can trust that the Follower will ultimately submit to, support, and help implement the Leader’s decision, while the Follower can trust that the Leader will listen to the Follower’s wants, needs, and concerns.
These roles and this dynamic, if agreed to and embraced, can bring peace, freedom, and harmony to a relationship and a marriage.
The Captain and The First Mate
So does this mean the Follower’s role is limited to just advice? Not at all. Consider a different analogy and imagine a ship at sea.
Like all ships, it has a Captain and a First Mate. If there were two Captains, then there would be two separate ships, for a ship cannot have two Captains. And if there were two ships, these ships would likely be going different directions and to separate destinations. They would operate independently, rather than as one team with one purpose, and run the risk of crashing into each other… unless of course they were under the command of an admiral.
So there is one ship, because when you marry someone you become one entity. One of you must jump aboard the other’s ship. Now, hopefully you agreed on the destination before you went aboard, because you can’t just leave – you’re stuck at sea with your partner, for better or for worse. And conversely, hopefully you didn’t invite a mutineer aboard, because then someone will likely have to walk the plank, be placed in the brig, or get dropped off on an island somewhere…
This is why the ship has a Captain and a First Mate. Like with The King and The Counselor, the Captain listens to the First Mate. Similarly, when the Captain commands, the First Mate obeys. The First Mate does not just advise the Captain though – he runs the ship when the Captain is away. He is highly competent, and can do any task that the Captain delegates to him, and command any and every member of the Crew except for the Captain, for the First Mate speaks with the Captain’s authority.
The ideal marriage then is a ship going towards a common destination with a Captain and a First Mate. So who’s in charge? Who should be the Captain, and who the First Mate?
Who Should Lead?
The Secret Desire
The thing is, it’s not just ships and kingdoms that have leaders – All well-run organizations with a mission and a purpose have a leader. The reason marriage, family, and Western Civilization at large is in crisis today is because the single most important institution in society, marriage, with the most important mission and purpose, that of family, has no clearly established leader.
Few people openly advocate for the woman to be in charge. But they certainly don’t want the man to be in charge. This arrangement is actively discouraged, viewed with the utmost suspicion, and portrayed as inherently abusive and degrading.
And yet… The Secret Desire remains. Deep down, everyone wants men to lead.
Men and women today are taught to suppress this perfectly natural desire rather than how to properly express it. This, unsurprisingly, simply leads The Forbidden Desire to boil just beneath the surface, an ironic sexual taboo laughing at our modern egalitarian sensibilities.
Woman today typically no longer believes in any sort of duty to submit. But she does subconsciously want someone to be in charge, and desires someone to truly care about her. Yet she fears and distrusts men, and doubts any man is actually worthy of submission, a belief often encouraged by her friends and family, who have her same fears.
Still, The Secret Desire remains.
Man today no longer believes he has any sort of right to rule. But latent within him is a desire to be respected, and a sense of duty to follow what he believes to be right. Yet he doubts himself, discouraged because he does not see and so does not believe that any woman would actually follow him.
Still, The Secret Desire remains, because it’s written on our hearts by God the Father Himself.
The Feminist Propaganda Coup
So why is The Secret Desire such a secret? Why is such a fundamental part of human nature and sexuality so suppressed?
Feminist Propaganda. Consider one absurd example:
Feminism claims to be liberation. Nothing, therefore, should be more offensive to Feminism than female submission. Yet Feminism has no problem with female submission; indeed, it encourages female submission to any and every man on earth.
Except one – Her Husband.
According to Feminism, “women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.” A woman can work, as long as it’s outside the home and for any man other than her husband.
She must obey her employer who uses her in some stupid and overrated job, but not her husband, who loves her, needs her for a job with actual meaning, and enables her flourishing in “the ultimate career.”
Which leader is more likely to be gentle and caring? Which one more likely to use and discard you? And yet, no one questions having a boss with the authority to command an employee to obey. Because that’s what makes a business run well.
But Feminists do not want families to run well, which is why they deny the purpose and authority structure of a family.
Feminist Propaganda defines Feminism as whatever is good for women and assumes its prescriptions will lead to the equality of the sexes. Patriarchy is assumed to be bad and is defined as the oppression of women.
By this deceitful definitional trick, it wins the argument without argument. But it is Feminism that is evil, not Patriarchy.
Patriarchy is protection, not oppression. It is the Rule of Fathers, men modeling themselves after the loving rule of God the Father. The Patriarchy was instituted by God the Father to point to Him as an icon and model of His love within the family.
Feminism is the removal of the protective restraints of the Patriarchy. It is the rebellion against the loving rule of God the Father. Feminism sets a woman against her husband by defining cooperation within marriage through distinct roles as oppression. It does this because Feminism views marriage through a lens of competition and strife towards individualistic goals, rather than cooperation and harmony in service of a united mission.
Unfortunately, the Feminist revolt has been extraordinarily successful, and has resulted in the almost total overthrow of the Patriarchy by Feminism.
The Origin of The War Between the Sexes
How did Feminism succeed in overthrowing the Patriarchy? By unleashing the powerful force of human sexuality from the protective restraints of the Patriarchy.
Our sexual desire is inherently possessive and our love naturally aspires to permanence. Under Patriarchy, both sexes cared for the other’s sexuality, protecting each other from their unique vulnerabilities. When a man marries a woman, he declares that he will cherish her, and never leave her. And when a woman submits to her husband, she reassures him that he is worthy to possess her. In the act of sex both desires are fulfilled, both promises renewed.
In marriage, women traditionally gave up authority in order to induce a man to take responsibility for the consequences of sex, which women bear the majority of by nature. Because of this, without commitment to those consequences from the man, sex is not a fair trade for women, nor an honorable choice for men.
For this reason, sex before marriage undermines male authority, because it is a failure on the man’s part to take responsibility to care for and protect the woman he supposedly loves. Even from himself. Even from herself. Fornication is Feminist, because is premised on the sexual “liberation” of women from the protective restraints of the Patriarchy.
Man is naturally protective of a woman he cares about – but he abdicates his duty to lead by exalting her momentary consent in the heat of passion over her deliberative consent on the altar.
Woman is naturally trusting of a man she cares about – but if she cant trust you to act with authority and take responsibility before marriage, why would she during?
Man and Woman have betrayed each other by using each other to pursue our own sexuality at the expense of the other’s. We hurt each other because we lie to each other with our bodies. Now we look at each other with distrust – He does not care for her sexual vulnerability, and she in turn does not care for her future husband’s sexual vulnerability. Fornication undermines the Patriarchy at both ends, while Feminism blames Patriarchy for its own failures.
A vicious cycle that leads to despair.
Traitors to Feminism and The Return of the Patriarchy
Everyone knows there’s something deeply wrong with gender relations today. Man and woman are meant to be best friends, but today we are angry at each other because we have hurt each other. Our relationships are built on distrust and we fight over our roles, rather than playfully leaning into them and trusting each other.
The War between the Sexes is Nature’s Revenge and God’s punishment for our rebellion against His law through sexual sin. The only way out to restore trust and to bring an end to The War Between the Sexes is to repent for our sexual sins, to reject the Feminist siren song of sex outside of the protective Patriarchal restraints of marriage, and to never despair – The ultimate Patriarchy is that of God the Father and, like the Prodigal Son, Christ will always welcome us back because he cares for us.
Unlike Feminism. Feminism betrayed us – so now we must be Traitors to Feminism. You owe it no loyalty and it tells only lies.
Women, if you find the idea of male leadership scary or evil, ask yourself whether you’ve ever experienced, or can even imagine, the loving rule of a father. Men are designed to care for and protect women, in imitation of God the Father. If you cannot find a man who is willing to do that for you, a leader who you can trust, then you shouldn’t marry him.
Now, obviously it’s hard to follow if the man doesn’t lead, or leads poorly. Sometimes it’s easier to just take charge, and this is a natural tendency for women, who naturally test men and desire strong leadership.
But what if there was someone you could trust to lead? Would you lay down your arms?
For men, what appeals to your deepest sense of honor and highest ideals? What inspires you to be a better man? Do you respect more the version of yourself that leads, or the version of yourself that sits back?
Now, obviously it’s hard to lead if the woman doesn’t follow, or is constantly fighting you. Sometimes it’s easier to just let her take charge, and this is a natural tendency for men, who naturally desire to please their wives and have peace with them rather than conflict.
Perhaps you can’t imagine your wife or girlfriend being on board, but what if she wanted you to lead too? Would you assume the mantle of leadership?
Men must lead because leadership makes a man more of a man, more of what he’s meant to be. Women both want, and in fact need, male leadership. And children and families flourish when men lead. The Secret Desire for loving male leadership within us all is written on our hearts by God the Father Himself.
So men, regain your self-control and self-respect, for you cannot rule others unless you first rule yourself. Women, learn to let go of control – remember those who do not trust cannot love. And Love, not Feminism, wins in the end.
The solution to The Marriage Quadrilemma then is clear - For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, through joy or sorrow, the Husband should rule and the Wife should obey.
This article originally debuted in part at the Young Women’s Leadership Summit on Father’s Day, June 15th, 2025 in Grapevine, Texas. It was finished Christmas Eve, 2025 in St. Joseph, Michigan
Comments