Look, we are starting to get way off tangent here. Debating the validity of the bible or any religious texts inconsestiansies (and I do agree its a big confussing mess full of paradox in some cases, who's religions text isint) isnt the crux of the matter.

From what I can tell, the op is mad at a church leader in his country for promoting female submission to one's husband. Which btw is the traditional stance of all the magior religious faiths through reccorded history, not just a Christan thing.

Which when we recognize the actual goal of the Church or any religion that promotes this aspect of human duality (yes even Islam) we find that the intention is to establish a mutually supportive relationship in which the roles are well established betwen the different partners.

Submission doesn’t imply in a Biblical nor in the Quran or otherwise any where to my knowledge that women are inferior to men or that one must be totally subservient like some kind of objectified subbie doormat.

You people who are trying to say that it means the man is allowed to walk all over the wife are litterally missing the boat.

It's quite the opposite in fact, and those who interpret the scriptures to be saying otherwise even after they have been explained to them are not doing so with the spirit of those scriptures intention in their heart but purposfully taking a stance for their own agenda to try and pick away at the institution of not only the church but marriage itself or in the case of the husband that trys to use it as an excuse to do whatever he wants, are in fact commiting a sin by ignorance or on purpose against said faith.