ArrantPariah wrote:
In fairness, I should note that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Baptists have similarly found me to be a frustrating subject. I actually read their material, and they don't really want to discuss it with me.
Bear in mind that not all Baptists--not even all Southern Baptists--are cut from the same cloth.
I don't mind discussing anything with you. I just seem to get censored every time I try to discuss it from my particular point of view. Since when is a Biblical point of view and traditional family values "sexist"? What is less egalitarian about a male head of a household? The trouble with a COMPLETELY equal partnership is who ultimately gets to decide a course of action when neither partner can come to a consensus. We avoid compromise, i.e. neither of us getting what we want, by establishing veto power concentrated in one of the partners. The underlying assumption is that we both are concerned with each other's welfare and the solidarity of the family unit as a whole. The way we work things out is she recognizes that as the head of the household I can overrule any decisions or courses of action I strongly believe are wrong. In turn, I recognize that my wife is brilliant, competent, and wise; therefore, it is in my best interest as well as the family's best interests to defer most of the decision-making to her. The kinds of things I'm going to be looking for in terms of what I will not allow are things that will obviously bring negative influences into the household--are my friends or my wife's friends doing/saying things to cause trouble for us? If so, we need to hang out with a different crowd. Are the children picking up bad habits from their friends/acquaintances at school or at church, or anywhere else? Then we get them away from abusive bullies and parents who don't even bother to monitor their children's behavior or teach them how to act when on their own. I know I suck at handling our finances, and I'm certainly not the big wage earner in the family. Most of the time I don't even see my own paychecks or even get so much as pocket change from them. But if we get into a financial bind and my wife is considering something I believe is morally objectionable, I'm simply not going to allow it.
Ironically, the effect this has had on our family seems to be the opposite of what you might generally expect. Like I said, she's the smart one and has better income potential. Meanwhile, I'm the one who quit my day job to take care of the baby so we wouldn't have to waste money on daycare. Our 4yo gets out of school at 11, so I spend a little time every day helping her practice piano and letting her help me watch the baby and do minor chores. I pick up our oldest around 3-ish most days, listen to him practice piano (music is a big deal), help him with his reading before bedtime, and tuck him in. We're taking turns at getting dishes washed and meals cooked. We have different conceptions of mealtime. Her idea of cooking is brown hamburger meat, pour something out of a box, add milk, cook at medium heat for 15 minutes. Serve with lima beans on the side. On the other hand, I'm more the kind of guy to spend a day at home, cut up fresh produce I picked up at the store that day, start prepping an hour or two before she gets off work, have bow-tie pasta with Bolognese sauce ready within an hour after she gets home. Fridays are typically tilapia and sweet potato night, which is her favorite. I also make fresh yogurt every couple of days, which the kids enjoy mixed with fruit for breakfast. It's this kind of lifestyle that has allowed my wife the freedom to grow in her career, earn 3 promotions in a matter of a few months, and enjoy (mostly) quiet and relaxing evenings at home. Sure, I need her help in picking up the slack sometimes. But for all I do, holding a baby for 30 minutes while I cook dinner is not all that terribly taxing on her.
A hierarchical family structure need not be "sexist," domineering, or authoritarian. I mean, think about it... Hierarchies are everywhere and they're useful. The main way they are useful is in keeping order. A family needs some means of keeping order to function in a healthy way. I'm better at modifying my children's behavior AND I spend more time with them, so discipline problems tend to fall into my sphere. I also tend to be more patient and can tune out noise during play time. Mom tends to freak out more and retreat to the bath tub. Because we've established the behavioral patterns we expect from our children, I don't have to "bring the pain." There's just a wide difference in how much respect I can command from them versus mom. On the other hand, she's very good at rewarding them. So depending on who gets home first, who has to work late, and who has to pick up kids from babysitter or school, whoever gets home last gets tackled by two adoring children. And it isn't uncommon for both of them to curl up next to me on the couch and fall asleep while I'm watching "Bunheads" or "Once Upon a Time" on TV. Being "in charge" does not mean we only do what I want to do, that I run the show like a dictator and don't bother listening to good advice from those I'm "in charge" of. I'm just the point man who is ultimately accountable for what happens within our family. A wise leader listens to advice and lets those with superior abilities either do the work or teach him the best practice for getting the job done. I value my life, ergo I choose NOT to fold clothes. My wife, on the other hand, doesn't clean toilets or take out trash (if I want it done, I have to do it). That's not an authoritarian thing--it's a stable, happy relationship thing. We owe that stability in part to a structure and rules/roles we agreed on before we got married.
The whole veto power thing I have works for several reasons. First of all, I rarely go there. Second, I know if my wife had that kind of power, we'd only ever do what she wants. Most of the time I really don't care, so she usually gets what she wants anyway. In order to maintain a balanced relationship that doesn't REALLY favor either of us but rather serves our mutual needs, the ability to "put the foot down" needs to rest with someone who can be trusted not to abuse it. If I'm the king, she's the actual power behind the throne--and that gives her an enormous amount of power in the household. The funny thing is our kids picked up on this and have tried to play us against each other a time or two, our middle child being a bit more persistent than the oldest. Sure, she got what she wanted at first. In the end, she wished she hadn't. They know not to try to go over mom's head by appealing to dad or vice versa. If I ask "what did mom say?" I'll practice "trust but verify." If mom doesn't give the answer I'm looking for, it's going to make for a very unpleasant evening for the child!
So I fail to see how a balanced family structure that happens to be headed by a male, is modeled after Biblical principles of family leadership, and otherwise follows a democratic balance of powers is necessarily non-egalitarian and sexist. We look out for each other and teach our children to do the same, to handle conflict privately and not take it to mom or dad, not to tattle on your sibling when the only way the sibling misbehaved was due to your actions or because the only way you knew what your sibling was doing was because you were doing the same thing or otherwise misbehaving yourself (if it's nap time, how did YOU know your brother was awake playing in his room?). Anyway, it makes me sad that merely DISCUSSING whether that is sexist or not is a no-no.
12 Feb 2013, 6:19 pm
