I found your post to be rather confusing.

At the beginning you mention that husbands are not really leading their wives the way Christ does if they never make the effort to correct their wives. But in the event that the wife is contentious, you suggest that the husband may need to pursue the "second best" option, an egalitarian marriage.

I can't seem to make that statement fit with the title if the post, or the prior statement you made. An egalitarian marriage involves the husband backing off from leadership. It doesn't result in two leaders, especially if it is motivated by contentiousness in the first place. Egalitarian marriages are contrary to scripture, so I have a hard time seeing them as second best. I don't see wives backing off from contentious attitudes because of an egalitarian arrangement, either. I think both still end up miserable.

I'm also curious as to why a husband would ask his wife if she will accept consequences if she is already showing that she is willing to disrespect him. I don't mean that a man should be heavy handed or capricious. But if a wife is causing problems by contentious behavior and attitudes, requesting that she allow correction will be likely seen as weakness. Sunshine Mary may have bucked her husband's instruction, but doesn't seem to be contentious overall. I don't think her husband asked her if she'd accept the consequences, either. He definitely didn't come off as weak. Asking her to receive correction and/or consequences would likely encourage more contention. A mostly submissive wife wouldn't need to be asked... or more accurately, she said yes at the altar.

You also mention that a man must continue to lead his unsubmissive wife, leaving the consequences up to the Lord. I do not like doling out consequences. I am not looking for justification of any kind. But the post went from husbands giving modest consequences because it is how Jesus leads the church, to asking if she'll accept consequences, and an egalitarian arrangement. Then you say we are to leave consequences for the unsubmissive wife completely to God.

I don't understand what your real point of view is, and I really need some wisdom in this area.

(edited for clarity)
Re-read this today and was more directly impacted by the concept of the wife's emotions and a controlling nature. I have found it extremely frustrating to go to counselling because of the false cultural understanding that is even common among pastors. You addressed one of the wrong approaches in the post. Specifically, that it is common to hear the criticism (to a man who is already likely controlled and frustrated) to man-up and try harder to satisfy her needs.

Another one that I have heard more than once (with wife present), is that the husband is responsible to make his wife feel happy and safe, or he has no right to expect to receive anything from his wife. Now, safe and happy are great things to be, but the *feelings* aren't always accurate. Neither is it Biblical to effectively submit the husband to his wife's emotions. If a wife doesn't want to be happy, a husband can't *make* her change. Any effort to correct her can be used as justification for her feeling unhappy.

One more which an elder told my wife was that the Bible doesn't command women to love their husbands. It *does* tell older women to teach younger women to love their husbands, though. The Bible also doesn't command us to hold and be affectionate to our babies, but that is very important... There are a couple things wrong with this elder's words, but what got me was that once again there is complete deference given to the wife's feelings so that no expectation can be put on her to control them. The wedding vow most of us take, rightly contains a promise to love and cherish for better or for worse. Controlling and directing emotions is important, but Christian culture seems to have no real wisdom on this point in my own experience, at least.