Does the Bible support an exclusive, unilateral discipleship role for husbands towards their wives?

I’ve been doing some dedicated reading into what I’ll call the “neo-patriarchy movement” as a lot of this literature has been gaining traction in my congregation. One of the consistent ideas in this camp that I find questionable is that the husband has an exclusive and uni-lateral role in discipling his wife: > The Bible also teaches that a wife should be a disciple of her husband…a husband should be instructing and teaching his wife. She should not make this duty superfluous by going elsewhere for the instruction. > > “Reforming Marriage” Doug Wilson > Though both men and women are to seek wisdom, women are instructed to seek it from men; from their husbands. > > “It’s Good to be a Man” Michael Foster The passages used to support the concept in both cases are 1.) 1 Cor. 14:35 which instructs wives to ask their husbands at home if they have questions in the assembly, 2.) Eph. 5:26 which discusses a husband washing his wife with the word. My thoughts both for and against this view: 1) There are multiple interpretations of the Corinthians passage, which can’t be debated here. However I hold to the “judging prophecies” view. In that case this is just saying in this context it would subvert male authority for women to speak out in judging prophecies.. The purpose of them asking their husbands isn’t to give a universal rule of exclusive husband discipleship, but to maintain order in the worship service. 2) Eph. 5:26: It might be a hot take, but I think it fits better with the flow of this passage if you take this section as referring to what Christ does, not what the husband does. In any case, if you do take this as a command to husbands, its still seems a stretch that this is creating a general rule of exclusive, uni-lateral husbandly discipleship. At most this could be taken as giving the husband the responsibility of caring for his wife's general spiritual welfare. 3) We know that “there is one mediator between God and men” 1 Tim 2:5, that all Christians can approach the throne of God “with confidence” (Heb. 4:16), and that through Jesus we now “have access to the father” (Eph. 2:18). So it seems odd that a woman getting married would result in her access to Christ being reduced. It also seems unbiblical that her husband would act as a sort of mediator to this degree. 4) Multiple examples of women learning directly from Jesus or other men: Jesus with Mary and Martha, the woman at the well, Paul teaching Lydia and the other women in Acts, the women following around Jesus and his ministry in Luke. 5) Even Calvin doesn’t see this passage as an exclusive, uni-lateral discipleship role. “When he says husbands, he does not prohibit them from consulting the prophets themselves, if necessary. For all husbands are not competent to give an answer in such a case; but, as he is reasoning here as to external polity…it is the part of the prudent reader to consider, that the things which he here treats are intermediate and indifferent, in which there is nothing unlawful, but what is at variance with propriety and edification.” 6) This concept does account for a the wife being a helper to her husband. How can she help him, if all the wisdom she receives, he already has since he gave it her? 7) On the other hand, in Genesis, God does give the command to Adam directly and not to Eve as well. (Although Eve wasn’t around to hear it at the time). 8) In my earlier examples of Jesus directly teaching women, none of them were married. The only exception is Joanna the wife of Chuza. But in her case she is not explicitly taught by Jesus (although it’s hard to believe she would not have heard his teaching while traveling with him). 9) If you hold to a different interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 or Eph. 5:26, then there may be a stronger case to take v. 35 as building a general rule of exclusive male discipleship. *I know this can be a hot topic, so thoughtful comments dealing with the biblical text and/or Christian teaching only. Please no patriarchy bashing.