This is the bulk of Charity's comment from a previous post:

So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?

At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written. I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.

I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.

Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.

Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.

Taken piece by piece:

So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?

No more so than having an authority in place is a dictatorship.  No more so than a Godly husband as head of the home is "dictatorial".

By the way, why use "unilateral" as  a qualifier?  What authority is NOT unilateral? Is the qualifier needed by egalitarians to justify the portrayal of a wife as being without rights?  I'm truly wondering.
I like the Oxford University Press's entry

A person, institution, or organization is said to have authority when the power it exercises is supposed legitimate, that is, authorized by some system of norms to which the speaker assents. The emergence of such norms in human society is a complex matter, with convention, habit, custom, and tradition playing different roles. Social contract theory is one kind of solution to the problem of the basis of authority; the evident utility of some rule-governed systems is another. While it is common to find scepticism about particular claims to authority, the idea that human co-ordination (and hence even communication) could exist without it is usually regarded as fanciful.

Back to Charity's comment:

At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written.

Actually...no.

Democracy was first introduced in the part of world where the New Testament was written...around 500 years BEFORE Christ walked this earth.

450 - 500 BCE

"It is called a government of the people (demokratia) becaue we live in considertion of not the few, but of the majority." - Thucydides on Pericle's view of democracy

Paul, being an educated man, would have had the words to describe democracy.   He would even have had the word to use.

Charity said:

I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.

That is true.  Democracy is not anarchy.  But...in order to have a democracy you must be able to have a majority.  You cannot have a majority with two people, you can only have agreement or a tie.

On the other hand, usinfo.state.gov give the "pillars of democracy"

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

• Sovereignty of the people.  (this could easily be the CBMW teaching of our equality before God)
• Government based upon consent of the governed. (If a woman chooses to marry, that could be the "consent of the governed)
• Majority rule. (here we have a problem, unless on spouse has the slight edge of the weight of the vote)
• Minority rights.  (if we give the husband the slight edge of the vote, or the tie-breaker), then the wife, functioning as the minority, is protected by all of the Biblical mandates for how a husband should treat his wife.  I don't have a problem with this)
• Guarantee of basic human rights. (Covered by Scripture - in either egalitarian or complementarian beliefs)
• Free and fair elections. (We could call these "marriage vows" and choosing your mate)
• Equality before the law. (or equality before God)
• Due process of law. (CBMW urges men to listen to their wives, take feelings, thoughts and convictions into consideration.)
• Constitutional limits on government. (Or Biblical limits - the limits that are placed by God)
• Social, economic, and political pluralism. (I'm not exactly sure how this translates to marriage, other than the "yours is yours and mine is mine does seem to be more suited to marital anarchy)
• Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.  (Read CBMW's "Love and Respect in Marriage"

• A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.

I think that democracy (not dictatorship) better describes a complementarian marriage (there is a majority and minority, there is a tie-breaker, there are the protected rights of the minority, the guarantee of basic human rights)

"Anarchy", on the other hand (per wikipedia)

• "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. (Ellen says, absence or inefficiency of a "supreme power" (in a marriage, that would be either the husband or the wife.  In so-called egalitarianism [the so-called being a hat tip to Charity] there is an absence of the primary decision maker.  To this definition fits)
  
• "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).  (Ellen say, "Again, this sounds like egalitarianism.  No governing person, each individual has liberty, [without the implication of disorder)
• "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."  (I recognize that some egalitarians would say that one person has authority in one arena, the other in another arena.  HOWEVER, egalitarians seem to balk at the idea of one person having authority over another)

All in all, "anarchy" (which can come without implication of disorder) seems better suited to egalitarian marriages than does democracy (which by definition is rule by the majority and you cannot have a majority with two people, unless one has a more heavily weighted vote).

And (all in all) "democracy" (with its protection of the minority, the limits placed by consitution (or Bible) and the values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise) are well within CBMW teaching.

Back to Charity:

I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.

Right...And this is exactly what CBMW teaches.

• A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.B

Back to Charity:

Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.

Here are some more actual quotes from CBMW

Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church often fail to protect women, and often blame the woman for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon her.²⁹ Feminists rightly criticize the church for failing to protect women. In one research project on domestic violence, 27% of pastors surveyed said that if a woman submits to her husband as God decrees, then the abuse will stop or God will give the woman grace to endure the beatings.³⁰ In fact, the beatings often do not stop and we should not presume on God's grace to endure avoidable suffering.³¹ These pastors have misunderstood the nature of domestic violence, and have seriously distorted the nature of biblical submission. Churches should aggressively confront abusers and pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women. True masculine headship is reflected in the sensitive care and protection of women.

and another

We believe that abuse is sin. It is destructive and evil. Abuse is the hallmark of the devil and is in direct opposition to the purpose of God. Abuse ought not to be tolerated in the Christian community.

Charity, how does this "shore up" abuse?

On the flip side, a wife in marital anarchy could easily neglect her home and family, reasoning "he's not the boss of me!"  There is the potential of abuse on both sides, from both spouses.

Charity says,

Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.

So we should have no consequences for our choices?  (NOTE:  I am NOT saying that an ABUSED woman should stay in an abusive situation.  Abuse is sin, complementarianism is not sin)

But...I know a couple who is in a wretched situation.  They are "egalitarian" and they both have a "you're not the boss of me" attitude.  Neither one has primary responsibility and they both go their own way.  Sexual neglect is the norm.  But, they both have what they chose.

Life without consequences does not exist.

There is one question that has not been answered:  How do egalitarians handle abusive marriages?