Quote from paul parmenter

I understand John Dias' comments, and agree that Tera is out to make mischief again (I too can recognise female manipulation from a mile away). But hey, the topic is so inviting I can't resist, and will succumb to the manipulation.

Responsibilities: having to make all the tough decisions that nobody else will make; having to be the protector of your family even in the face of severe danger; being held liable for the financial costs of running the family home, whether you are able to earn enough to meet them or not; and being held accountable for anything that goes wrong, even if it is not your fault.

Benefits: only one, being the satisfaction of seeing your family prosper and be happy (if indeed that happens. It is not guaranteed).

Drawbacks: receiving no appreciation, acknowledgement or thanks for your efforts, certainly never from outside your family, and only occasionally, if at all, from inside it (you have no idea what being taken for granted means until you are the man in a family). Being placed as the legal inferior to your woman, in that she has the power to remove you from your home, children and money at any time of her choosing, with the full backing of the government's agencies and at your expense; while you have no power to do the same to her. Being treated as the family clown - everyone will enjoy seeing you being humiliated. Facing a barrage of misandry from outside your home, that seeks to worm its way into your home - via the TV, media, what your children are taught at school etc etc. Knowing that you are alone in your responsibilities because nobody gives a damn about how you feel or how difficult it may be for you, and there is no help or support available. You sink or swim on your own. Seeing far less of your children than you would like because you have to work like stink to take care of their material wellbeing, as well as that of a host of parasites who sponge off your taxes, courtesy of a government you didn't vote for. Knowing that this enforced and artificially elongated absence can and will be held against you as evidence that you care less for your children than your woman does.

I had better stop there - this is not good for my blood pressure. You see Tera, it worked - you got me steamed up.

Now ask why so many men are stupid enough to take on this terrible job.

True. Let's not forget about heart attacks and unfulfilling jobs. Who the hell wants go through overtime, doing all the labor, protecting the household, limiting their emotions, not see the kids, taking all the blame, doing all the gross housework, knowing if something happened to you your wife wouldn't be able to take care of you, working while your wife is at home when the kids are grown up, never getting to enjoy the money you make, always playing the role of the disciplinarian.


This is just as whipped as the modern male. Its a different sort of power a woman has over a man.

Quote from chevalier

The man has the final say in decisions that effect the whole family. But he also takes responsibility if he makes the wrong one.

So men need more responsibility?

Quote from John Dias

Why not point out that it is the woman's choice not to work? If she DECIDES not to earn an income, then don't talk to me about male privilege. And if she decides that it's her PRIVILEGE and prerogative to stay home rather than work -- but she would not offer this option to a man -- then just who exactly is infected with the entitlement mindset?

Exactly. Nobody wants to work. Why should he not get this option?

Lets not forget she gets the option of working part time too.

Quote from Kim

I think very few people these days understand what it means for a man to be the head of his home, just as very few people understand what a traditional marriage is.

I was told once, not too long ago, that I was not traditional because I have always held a job. I disagree. My response to this person was that in traditional marriage the husband and wife are united in doing whatever is necessary and in the best interest of their marriage and family. Just like I know for a fact that my great, great grandmother went out and helped tend the fields when it was necessary, I do what is necessary for my family.

While I have always held a job, I've always known what my main obligations were, those being to care for my home, children, husband and family. Any job I ever took was one that did not compromise those obligations. If it were feasible, I would not work. Not because I am lazy and wish to sit around watching T.V. all day but because I would like to devote all my time to my primary obligations.

As Paul Parameter pointed out, a man being head of the home does not set him up as some kind of all powerful dictator. It is not an exalted station of privilege. Being head of the home means taking on the responsibility for the family. Few men have any desire to do that without the benefit of their wives help, advice and input. It is, above all, a responsibility and one that involves much sacrifice.

Inconceivably, it is actually a position a man is generally still expected to fulfill.....just without any of the authority. Most women still expect their husbands to provide for, protect and defend but then pull out the 'I'm my own person', 'I'm empowered', 'I'll do what I want' cards when a man attempts to make decisions that are in the interest and for the protection of his family.

In my religion, men hold priesthood, meaning that they have the authority to act in God's name, including giving blessings. This authority is given to men to use for the betterment of all. No man would ever be considered worthy who abused his authority. Once again, it is a responsibility, and authority that must only be used for good and for the betterment of society and those around them. I think this is much like a man being the head of his household.

Feminists would like to paint a picture of the man being the supreme ruler while the wife huddles at his feet, walks two paces behind or stands chained to the stove.....this has absolutely NOTHING to do with a man being the head of his home. It is a system of organization where there is no competition and everybody has their role. Each role is essential to the welfare of the family and everybody recieves the admiration, respect and appreciation they deserve for undertaking their roles.

So instead of expecting women to be do their share of the providing, protecting and defending we just need to add MORE responsibility.

Believe me, the women's role is MUCH better. He does not get to be provided, protected for and defended from anything.

Quote from Adrian

Been a long time since I've been around here, but I'll bite since I'm probably the patriarch around my house. (Although, I'm sure plenty of people like to think of me as a "male head", I prefer "patriarch".) It pretty much means I'm "the king". If there is ever a conflict I can usually win it if I really want to. I make all the important decisions, such as where we are to live and if we have to move and so on. I even have a lot of authority over the home schooling -- what curriculum to use and so on.

But, the thing is that I basically do it all for them anyway. I really don't care, myself. Only long after the fact have I come to realize that I never really wanted to live in a house. I don't even think I directly wanted to have kids -- I just knew I was supposed to. (Of course, I love my children now that they are here.) I just sort of know what the deal is supposed to be and try to make it happen. My wife senses this and has sensed it from the beginning because I do a bunch of stuff that I never had to do and that no one really ever had a right to expect of me. So, for her, I don't think it is all that hard to just defer. Like someone deferring to the decisions of some corporation they might work for, most of the decisions that are made are clearly (and must be) made pragmatically for the success of the family.

So, like I say, I am something like the Benevolent Dictator of my family. If I ever do step down from that position it will be the worst thing to ever happen to my wife and kids and they kind of know it. Even my wife gets to just take it for granted that she will be supported and protected -- not just protected from home invaders or something like that, but from society -- from nosy social workers or socially aggressive neighbors or pushy doctors and so on. I always "know what to do". I'm "always right". No one really argues. And, I never really try to pretend that a whole lot of bullshit on my part could ever be somehow my right to do as "the king". (In other words, I tend not to abuse my authority.)

Most of the time it is thoroughly appropriate since, for instance, I work and she stays at home. (So, it is thoroughly appropriate that I do what must be done and largely expect no back talk about it if we have to move because of my job or something like that.) Most of the time, I pretty much just check what they want and do my best to make it happen. Frankly, I hate it. It's pretty much a raw deal, especially nowadays when you can't even have an honorable place in society where you are respected for it. If you left it up to men, they would just play video games in their parents' basement til they die. It is the effect of they're testicles in a particular social context that causes them not to do this and instead be chivalrous and honorable only to realize way later in life that most of the things they do really has nothing to do with anything that THEY, actually, really wanted in life.

And if something ever happened to you , how would your wife provide or protect you? How would she run the household?

Don't you want to spend more time with your kids? Find a more enjoyable job? not have to make all the decisions? do some charity work? and have more lesisure time?

Why don't we encourage responsibility, logical behavior and caring for others in women instead of this ridiculous concept?


We are basically saying if a man wants the respect the woman is automatically given he needs to live his life for her.

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/03...ubmission.html

I had forgotten that I posted this -- I meant to check back for responses!
I've been dating a guy for almost 4 months and it's pretty much my first serious relationship. I'm 29. I have the advantage of working for a singles ministry for college and young singles (18-35), so I've seen plenty of good and bad relationships - well, as best as I can tell from the outside looking in.
L (#8) - Agreed! My rule has been: I don't act like I'm dating, til I'm dating. I don't act like I'm engaged til I'm engaged and I don't act like I'm married til I'm married. Submission is one of those things, but I want to be wise about it.
BDB (#12) - I've made him plan practically everything! I actually feel a *little* bad about this. Just a little. In the 4 months, I've planned 2 things - both with my family...one was a wedding and one was his getting to meet them. We've been on almost 20 official dates and he's planned all but those 2. He always asks my opinion on where to go out to eat, but he usually has a list of things he's thinking about and I pick something from the list. And 1/2 the time, he's got the restraunts on the list that I've already mentioned in casual conversation!
I've also made him ask for my time. It's never assumed that we're going on a date each weekend. Nope, even now, he asks for my time to see me. Eventually, that will change, I'm sure, but for now, that's what he does.
This isn't me demanding any of these things - just me expecting them.
BB (22) - He's had plenty of opportunity to see me submit, particularly because of my role in the ministry - working under the direction of our ministry president. And with he and I together in our roles as co-leaders of a co-ed Bible study. Thanks for your words on letting him lead.

My struggle in general -- given that submission starts at "I Do", is there anything I can do NOW, as a single who is dating, to 1) practice being submissive and 2) see if this is a man that I can submit to? Meaning: that he'll take that role on and do it well and not just say that he will.








If this is what male headship involves men who want to lead have some serious problems. Otis said it the best when he said if he wanted a relationship he wouldn't want to lead because it is hard to be responsible and take care of yourself much less someone else.

Around my house I make the final decisions.

I don't pay attention to small details but when there is a notable decision to be made I listen to all the arguments and decide.

The problem we have in modern families (those still together) are too many chiefs and not enough indians. It's chaos. The opinion of the children outweighs the opinion of the adults in many cases (especially fathers) because modern society is doped up on "the kids always come first".

Imagine a military unit with the privates opinion outweighing the generals opinion. The chain of command is required in many areas of life and family is certainly one of them.

Dad and Mom always butting heads for control causes so much chaos and is likely one of the main reasons for divorce. There has to be a leader, not two of them though. So why the man?

The difference between men and women in leadership roles is that men aren't quite as picky as women. A home ruled by a woman is a home full of constant nagging. Men pay little attention to the "small stuff" and this gives more freedom to everyone involved.

It seems that alot of us are having a hard time answering this question. Why? Alot of us were denied fathers and the lessons of leadership (usually taught by example) were never taught.

Quote from Garak

Around my house I make the final decisions.

I don't pay attention to small details but when there is a notable decision to be made I listen to all the arguments and decide.

The problem we have in modern families (those still together) are too many chiefs and not enough indians. It's chaos. The opinion of the children outweighs the opinion of the adults in many cases (especially fathers) because modern society is doped up on "the kids always come first".

Imagine a military unit with the privates opinion outweighing the generals opinion. The chain of command is required in many areas of life and family is certainly one of them.

Dad and Mom always butting heads for control causes so much chaos and is likely one of the main reasons for divorce. There has to be a leader, not two of them though. So why the man?

The difference between men and women in leadership roles is that men aren't quite as picky as women. A home ruled by a woman is a home full of constant nagging. Men pay little attention to the "small stuff" and this gives more freedom to everyone involved.

It seems that alot of us are having a hard time answering this question. Why? Alot of us were denied fathers and the lessons of leadership (usually taught by example) were never taught.

Marc Rudov and commentators said something like this. About how the marriage and how partners should put each other first and kids are the product of a loving marriage and household and not the focus.


So doesn't all responsibility/blame fall on you? What is the womanly duty that corresponds to a man leading?

Every man and woman is born with equal rights, but a person may choose to give up some of their rights. There is nothing wrong with this, if it is chosen freely. Male headship simply means a relationship in which the woman gives up some of her rights willingly, and in return receives protection and leadership from the man. That submission is freely given is essential.

The responsibilities of a head of household are like those of a lord to his vassals in the times of feudal domains. The lord kept his vassals safe and his domain orderly, and in return, his vassals provided support and obedience. It is not a one-sided relationship, but a mutualistic one, with each partner having responsibilities to the other.

A head of household also has the responsibility to listen to the input of his wife and children. He must recognize his wife as an intellectual equal, though not an equal to him in power. The final decision on major household issues rests with the head of household, but he must make the choice he believes will yield the best results for the household as a whole, not just himself. Thus, a head of household needs to be a good listener.

Male headship isn't one size fits all, because families aren't one size fits all. It can be the determined man married to a more laid-back woman. It can be a Christian couple that believes strictly in tradition. It can be a D/s or M/s relationship in which the woman gives her body, mind, and soul to her Dominant.

Male headship also isn't for every family. As I said, families are not one size fits all. Some families consist of a more laid-back man married to a more take-charge woman. Some families have traditions of female headship (think Mosuo or Iroquois). And some D/s and M/s relationships are FemDom. In those families, male headship probably wouldn't work well.