Can a modern woman still allow a man

Can a modern woman still allow a man to be head of the household? by DIANE GLASS, Ph.D. Atlanta Journal-Constitution Columnist The thought of someone else wielding authority and economic control over my life isn't a fantasy I indulge. And although some women view dependency as a positive, I feel this view is naïve when it comes to finances. Regardless of their actual contribution, the assumption already permeates our culture that men are heads of the household and "kings of the castle". Why would a woman embrace this hierarchy? Marriage should be equal and cooperative, not a reflection of corporate culture. Nevertheless, modern women can -- and often do -- choose to relinquish financial control to their husbands. But do modern women really want to? Bestowing decision-making authority on a husband or partner, under the best of circumstances, can work in your favor. But how many of us live in the best of circumstances? With the divorce rate at 50 percent you have a 50/50 chance of losing. Do you want to gamble with odds like this? Of course, dividing duties in relationships is one of the perks that affords us more time. Dividing the workload is a healthy result of sharing responsibility. And for those in traditional families, women wield their own power as the provider of domestic needs. Yet the traditional roles assigned to men and women have different degrees of respect and autonomy. The traditional woman's domestic role is undoubtedly the foundation of a family, her contribution priceless. Yet this foundation crumbles in a world driven by money. If a couple divorces, there is a good chance the wife will retain custody of the children. Not only does she have the responsibility of young lives but the extra burden of finding employment that compensates an often paltry child support stipend. The same logic extends to women without children. Major decisions, like finances, are decisions both sexes should share -- not relinquish -- because these are the things that make us safe in a world where men leave, husbands die and fathers fall on hard times. You'll often hear conservative arguments that blame women for the high divorce rate. Their logic assumes male superiority and faults modern women for emasculating, dehumanizing and ultimately alienating men. They argue that modern women are responsible for "male flight," while men are their hapless victims. But pointing fingers at women contradicts the core values of a marriage: it takes two people to make a relationship work. Surely relationships rest on stronger bonds than ego stroking and role-playing. If traditional families fall apart when a wife doesn't follow traditional roles, can we really claim that families are the "bedrock," the "foundation" of society? So let the Promise Keepers and the Million Man March join forces in a feeble attempt to win back what they view as their rightful place, citing the Bible and the Koran as proof positive that family leadership is their divine right. If women won't listen to men, surely they'll listen to a holy text. Well, some of them will. The rest of us prefer to be guided by our own rules -- those of the 21st century. By VERNADETTE BROYLES There has been gross misunderstanding regarding the issue of whether the man should be viewed the head of the household. Modern feminists would say no, never. Staunch traditionalists hold it's a man's "divine right." Both extremes miss the mark. I can affirm it is very much possible for a modern woman to allow her husband to be head of the household -- and to feel extremely loved and blessed in the process. But, it is only when spouses appreciate the true requirements of love and mutual respect that such an arrangement can be a blessing, and not a source of denigration to women. Probably the most quoted source for the notion of a husband's headship is the Bible. Yet the text many would cite starts out by commanding men and women to "submit one to another" out of respect for Christ. It, furthermore, makes clear that the only--and I repeat only -- way a husband can expect a wife to "submit" to his leadership is if he is submitted to God. Because God is love, the husband is commanded to reflect God's character in marriage by loving his wife as equal to himself. The Bible goes on explain this responsibility a husband has towards his wife in, perhaps, the best definition of love ever composed: "Love is patient and kind. Love does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. Love is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrong. Love always protects, always trust, always hopes, always perseveres." I can share from personal experience, and that of many women friends, it is neither difficult nor degrading to view as head of the household a man who loves you in this way -- a man who is kind, who eschews anger and intimidation, and who is willing to submit to you as well. Such men need not demand respect nor assume leadership -- they inspire it, instead, by the trust they invoke in their families. And yet, after working with literally hundreds of battered women, I am painfully aware that a presumption of male headship -- divorced from the constraints of Godly love and mutual submission -- has been used by far too many and for far too long to dominate, abuse, and denigrate women. As a result, whole cultures and eras in history have spawned a mindset of female inferiority and male entitlement. Leadership and respect are things to be earned by one's character -- not an entitlement by virtue of one's gender. A woman cannot be expected to view her husband as the head of anything when he is abusive, unloving, or unsubmitted to God. Having been a go-getter all my life, I feel tremendously blessed to have married a man who has proven himself worthy of leadership in our home. I pay him loving tribute in writing this column. And yet to the countless women who have endured the ravages of abusive and self-serving male headship, I say you have every right to revolt.