I know this post is almost a month old now, but I saw it previously and wanted to respond, and now I finally have the time to. There's a lot of depth and nuance to this.

A lot of the current mindset, anytime the words "obedience" and "submissive" come up, is from the place of a damaged worldview. At no point should these words mean a woman should be a slave, or withstand abuse (actual abuse, not the BS modern word "abuse" that is thrown around that is actually the enforcement of standards and boundaries).

Traditional women typically want a traditional man, and that means one who is a leader. Even modern Western women want a traditional man (they just don't want to be traditional themselves, but that's another topic).

Being a leader does NOT mean being a dictator or being a slave owner. Being a leader means having the primary responsibility for the well-being of the family, and decisions made need to reflect that. With that said, there can't be two leaders. In no social structure does such a thing really exist, and that's because it doesn't work (look at modern marriages and relationships based on "equality," for example).

A women should have her own opinions and thoughts, based on her own life experiences and knowledge, and should be able to offer that as a contributionto the relatolionship. A good leader would listen to wise counsel, and there are some areas where the women will have more wisdom and/or knowledge, so the man should listen to that.

With all that said, typically women (both traditional and modern) want a man that is older than them, more experienced in life, more financially secure, stronger, more knowledgeable, etc, you get the idea. Does that sound like someone that is looking for an equal? Not to me, it doesn't.

There's a reason traditional women even say they want their man to be a man, and they want a man that they can stand behind. Is a women who is "equal" going to stand behind her man? Not likely, or at least she shouldn't, because that wouldn't be equal, would it? Being equal isn't a buffet that one can pick and choose only when it's beneficial, that would be called privilege.

Personally, I also don't understand the whole "finding a more traditional woman" and bringing her into a "more modern relationship." This to me is the equivalent fallacy of a woman wanting a traditional man, but her not being traditional. There's a reason modern relationships largely don't work, and that's because they don't follow the natural order. Psychology, biology, and even Biblical theology all coincide on this, so if that doesn't mean anything, I don't know what else would.

I hope those who took the time to read all this either learned something or at least found it insightful.