The Escape Plan


I have read with interest Deep Strength’s latest posts on submission and marriage. In chronological order we have:

Intelligent submission is not required

Submission is a test of faith

Women’s sin nature in marriage and contentment

Unfortunately, time restraints kept me from responding in detail until now. Since DS has written several follow-ups to the first post, some of what I was going to say is now dated. Some now ideas developed, however, and so I will try and flesh out this post as best as I can.

I should note that I don’t agree with all that DS has to say- sometimes for theological reasons and sometimes practical reasons. But those disagreements can be worked out in other posts (and in some cases already have)


To begin with, I want to explore the notion of “intelligent submission.” As some alluded to in DS’s post, such a term is highly disingenuous. Not because there is anything wrong with either word. The problem is when they are combined together. The addition of “intelligent” is meant to apply a condition to submission- in other words, to limit its application.

Frankly, whenever anyone proposes limiting any expression of faith, be it submission, or charity, or compassion, etc., massive red flags need to be raised. Has anyone among my readers heard of “Intelligent Compassion” before? I can’t say that I have. And if I did, you better believe I would be looking for the con. I rather suspect I would not be alone in this.

Intelligence, or better put, Wisdom, is a trait that all Christian women should posses, or strive to build. Married women are no exception to this:

She opens her mouth with wisdom,
    and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

(Proverbs 31:26)

However, when people start talking about “Intelligent Submission” they aren’t referring to a woman exercising wisdom and submitting to her husband at the same time. No, they are saying a woman should intelligently decide when and where and how to submit to her husband. The gap between those two notions is as vast as that between Lazarus and the Rich Man. No bridging that gap.

All of this drives to my main point: beware of those who try and applies conditions to how they live out their faith. For most, if not all, their intentions are not benign. What they are trying to do is limit how much work they actually have to put into their faith. An example from our Lord:

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God,[a] he need not honor his father.’[b] So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word[c] of God.

[Footnote b: By dedicating his property to God, i.e., to the temple, a man could avoid having to help his parents, without actually giving up what he had. The scribes held such a vow to be valid without necessarily approving it.]

(Matthew 15:1-6)

They want to have their cake and it eat it- to appear righteous, without having to live a righteous life. Which leads to the next part.


This idea of appearing righteous without having to actually be righteous is what Deep Strength covers in his most recent post:

That’s ultimately what it comes down to: women want to let their husband lead instead of following his lead. I had thought that twisted rebellion like the complementarians espouse was the main sin nature of women. However, I believe I am now wrong about that. Covert rebellion which is “I let my husband lead” is probably the main sin nature of women because it’s under the guise of righteousness (e.g. the husband is leading) but it gives her all of the power (e.g authority) in the relationship.

This is the true essence of virtue signalling. Grabbing power while maintaining the moral high ground. It’s not enough to grab power. It must be done with the moral high ground.

In other words, a woman must look good while rebelling or sinning. As Looking Glass likes to call it: Vanity. Vanity rebellion. Women’s sin nature in marriage is Vanity Rebellion.

DS is very close here. He is spot on about the specific behavior that women are exhibiting here. Although I think the name “Vanity Rebellion” is a bit clunky, I can’t think of a better name myself, so VR it is.

This VR phenomenon is quite prevalent in Christian circles, and is something I think we can probably call endemic to human nature. Nor is it necessarily limited to women, although I think women are more prone to it.

As DS points out, can also see this virtue signalling when it comes to divorce- women always try to have the moral high ground when they initiate a divorce. It is never because the woman is just tired of marriage. That might be part of it, but there is always some major failing on the man’s part.

At the same time, however, I think that this specific behavior is just a particular manifestation of a much broad behavior that women are prone to engage in. I call it “The Escape Plan.”

It is as simple as it sounds- always have an escape plan in place in case something goes wrong. Whatever the situation is, always have an out for it. You can find this behavior everywhere:

Don’t like what your husband is telling you to do? Claim it wouldn’t be intelligent to submit to him, and that is what God expects of wives.

Don’t like being married to your husband? Divorce him and claim it is his fault, that the moral blame lies on him because he failed as a husband and God wants you to be free.

Don’t need an abortion but want to be free to get one if need be, and at the same time appear righteous? Say that you are personally against abortion but don’t feel the state should intervene in women’s lives/bodies.

Rollo’s Plan B is an example of this. Keep a “Plan B” man around… just in case.

Heck, you see this in domestic violence cases all the time. The woman calls the police, but then tells them she doesn’t want the man arrested. Why? Lots of reason, but a major one is she wants them there to cool the situation down, at least at first. But then she can decide whether to keep the relationship or not. If she decided to keep it, she says she doesn’t want to press charges. If she decides to ditch her man, say she wants charges. You can also see this with women who will stick with a man, but then tell their friends or family they are “in fear of their lives.” This gives them a great out- they can stay if they want, but once they want out they can call the police and point out they warned people in the past. [This is nothing, mind you. Having friends who are cops can provide all kinds of stories- but this isn’t the place for that. ]

Again, the goal is setting up a situation where the woman can bail at any time if she wants to. It is all having options.

This explains Vanity Rebellion- women want to appear to be a good, righteous woman. But they also worry about what the cost of that could be if they actually lived up to everything. So they gain power… just in case.

Now, men do this too. But women, who are more naturally covert than men as owing to their nature, are far and away more prone to this. So prone to it I would argue that it is a standard procedure for women- they will default to it unless they actively resist. For men I think it is much more likely to be an active choice, and thus less common.


And that wraps up my commentary for today. To recap:

  • People who add conditional modifiers to expression of faith, such as submission, are almost always (and should be presumed to be) acting in bad faith.
  • Vanity Rebellion is just one example of a larger phenomenon, The Escape Plan- whereby a woman tries to get some perceived good but at the same time leaves an option available to her to bail or escape if the cost should prove too high.

My readers are of course free to disagree and/or add their own thoughts.


Filed under Blue Pill, Christianity, Churchianity, Femininity, Marriage, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Sin, State of Nature, Temptation, The Church, Women

11 responses to “The Escape Plan

  1. Good stuff.

    I think escape plan is definitely part of it. I don’t know if I would call it the bigger picture in terms of vanity rebellion (and yeah, it would be useful to have another term). It is in some cases, but it isn’t in some others.

    Obviously, it is in terms of women who want to divorce — that is they know they’re stuck and unhappy with ‘betas’ so they’re planning to exit sooner or later. This is definitely the case with secular women. That would also account for say the 20-40% of women who divorce and call themselves Christians from Prot, Catholic, and Orthodox. AKA the Jenny Ericksons.

    The Christian ones who are married to men they’re unhappy with but won’t divorce… they definitely are the ones who are consistently nagging, contentious, rebellious, and covertly take over their relationship with help from complementarians and egalitarians depending on the Church.

    Either way, they claim the moral high ground and appear righteous due to bad theology (e.g. godliness is attractive; women are naturally more spiritual; women’s feelings are an indicator of the leadership of the husband, etc.), and subtly take over the relationship according to their own whims. This is where you find the men brow beaten and scared of their wife’s temper tantrums. The happy wife, happy life parroters.

    Thus, the specific dichotomy if women see divorce as viable option or not.

    P.S. As an aside, I’d be interested in the specific things you disagreed with. You can e-mail me if you want on that.

  2. Michael Kozaki

    “Intelligent submission” is not unique to women. Men have it as bad. In marriage, religion, culture, extended families. Men display; women choose.

    Ever notice people of unity rarely have theological or obedience issues? They tend to assume the best from others (from pastor, bishop, spouse, neighbor, pope). This desire for unity begets unity.

    In the same way, division begets division. E.g., look at the RC angst over the current pope’s comments. Modern people are looking for division. They will indeed find it. God is clever, but never malicious.

    Lesson: never marry, or hang with, one who doesn’t like to be obedient to others. Remember: disobedient spouse? Like attracts like.

  3. Anonymous Reader

    Let him lead, yep, it’s the difference between a driver and a chauffer. Women tend to want a chauffer – they decide where the car goes, the chauffer “makes it so”. They don’t want a driver, who decides on his own where to drive, except that they crave that man.

    It’s the same old “where’s my fried ice?” outcry.

    Nobody can obey perfeclty all the time, we don’t even have to get into theology to observe that. There’s a difference between ‘trying and failing and trying again’ and ‘finger in the eye defiant rebellion’, though.

  4. @ DS

    I will possibly go into the theology later. Not a big deal at the moment.

    As a further extension of my “options” line of thought, I should add that having options requires power. Hence the female drive to have as much power and control over certain spheres of life. Only by having that power can they ensure they have options.

  5. @ AR

    There’s a difference between ‘trying and failing and trying again’ and ‘finger in the eye defiant rebellion’, though.

    Aye, that there is. And what is going on is an attempt to blear the lines between the two so it is no longer a clear difference. That way they can claim the one but maintain the other.

  6. Rebellion , if a cliff, is one that women want to snuggle right up to the precipice. The absence of pebbles crumbling and tumbling from the edge and bouncing down the sides and of feet being shifted to keep from falling off the ledge shows that she is too given over to his headship. She must at all times be at the brink of falling into rebellion in order to maintain her moxy a go grl

  7. Pingback: Options and escape plans | Christianity and masculinity

  8. Michael Kozaki

    AR, driver decides where the car goes, the chauffeur “makes it so”.

    Never heard this analogy. It’s really good. Note even a driver is not ‘free’ (gas, roads, insurance bathroom breaks, cops). But any unified family has gotta have a driver if they are going to get anywhere. Perfect analogy.

    Today, most have gone “off road” yet seem surprised when their spouse behaves in a similar way. Not to mention switching rigs at gas stations. Freedom is addictive…

  9. mntngt

    Got here via DS……Agree with you and like your clarity in explaining, however do have one bone to pick …its the second half of..
    “Don’t need an abortion but want to be free to get one if need be, and at the same time appear righteous? Say that you are personally against abortion but don’t feel the state should intervene in women’s lives/bodies.”

    It is absolutely paramount that Christendom gets on the right side of this issue ( Its Gideon’s army allegory once again, 99 out of a 100 showing up for battle weren’t really fully equipped )

    Here’s what I’ve previously written else ware on the subject of abortion…

    ‘The problem as I see it is that Christians are trying to fight this battle in the political/legal arena which just isn’t scriptural.
    It is just as much an abomination to have a law against abortion as it is to have a law allowing it. Let me explain… is an issue of jurisdiction, I remember reading somewhere in Deut. (I think) the phrase “and do not move the boundary stones” , the interesting thing was that it was totally out of context or so it seamed to me at the time because it was in the middle of a discourse not about land but one of jurisdiction.
    Abortion as terrible as it is, is strictly a family issue and does not involve the state.
    One way to test this premise is to take it to the extreme, let say we actually had capital punishment IN THE PRESCRIBED BIBLICAL WAY, in other words where as the state can and must in certain circumstances hand down the sentence of death, it can not itself carry out the execution, the only one who can carry out the execution is the ‘blood avenger’ who is the closest blood relative to the murdered victim. You can see where I’m going with this, If you go all out and say a woman having an abortion ( and person performing it)are guilty of murder and punishable with death then the blood avenger becomes none other than the woman herself. So one can see that having a law on the books making it illegal just doesn’t work, as wrong as as abortion is.
    WE are moving into the Kingdom age, and understanding jurisdiction ( family,church, state ) and where our authority lays within those is of vital importance ‘

    It’s the thin edge of the wedge, the moment we allow,or worse ‘invite in’ the state into an area it does not have God given jurisdiction we are just paving the road to hell

    Just saying…chew it over and if you are willing to concede that I might have a point, great. And if you disagree ( expected ) fine ,let me know, but please don’t waste your time tearing me a new asshole as some have….

  10. Michael Kozaki

    mntngt, Christians trying to fight in the political/legal arena isn’t scriptural…an abomination to have a law against abortion…issue of jurisdiction…I remember reading in Deut…if you disagree (expected) fine, let me know, but don’t waste your time tearing me a new asshole as some do….

    mntngt, I read your comment with interest. It’s fairly logical assuming an independent, non-authoritative view of Christianity.

    But every local church gotta draw a line somewhere to have any meaningful moral community, right? The bible can’t do this (as you demonstrate). So disunified Christians need scapegoats for faux moral unify…and face it, your abortion views be dang good scapegoat material!

    If you are interested in new ideas, read the early Church on these issues. I’ve never read any early Christian (say pre-1400 AD) who thought individually as you do. Rather, they believed their moral code fell under the authority of the Jesus, as interpreted by the Church and Christians operated as one on moral issues as they approached the State.

  11. mntngt

    M K

    ” Rather, they believed their moral code fell under the authority of the Jesus, as interpreted by the Church and Christians operated as one on moral issues as they approached the State. ”

    I agree, however the pre 1400 Christians weren’t screwed up with some of the post 1400 teachings . Scripture is very clear about rooting out the false doctrines and what to do with false teachers… the ‘interpreted by the church ‘ needs to be taken with a grain of salt

    I do struggle a lot with making myself understood….please don’t think that I have a non authoritative view of Christianity…it’s rather that I have been developing through my walk with Christ a very finely tuned awareness of the different degrees and levels of authority and what lies where and how much proper understanding of this has been trampled underfoot by the church itself

    The local church needs to exemplify morality rather than define it

    Thanks for finding my comment interesting

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s