( No Title )
Not that I know anything, but the more I think about it, the more I begin to believe that “man as the head of the household” stuff isn’t meant to be about “women should be docile and obey their husbands” but rather about making men stand up and take some dang responsibility. Because it is so easy for households to be run completely by women. Speaking on a purely biological level, the man isn’t necessary after the moment of conception. A woman births a child and feeds it with her body, and thus it makes sense for her to be the caretaker who stays closest. A boy can live his childhood knowing a woman as “the one who takes care of me.”
It would be so easy for the boy to stay in that child’s role as a husband–let the wife take care of the kids and take care of him while she’s at it. Just transferring from one mother to another. But that puts all the burden of the entire family on the woman, with no one to help her, which is ridiculously unfair.
Telling the man that he’s head of the household is like saying, “She is not here to take care of you. You are here to take care of her. It is your responsibility to make sure that this woman and all your children are happy, healthy, safe, and loved.” Putting him in charge is saying “It’s your fault if things go wrong.” It’s telling him to take up that role as caretaker, rather than slacking off. It’s not saying he’s better than everyone else. It’s laying down rules so he actually has to worry about someone besides himself. And I know that’s very simplistic, but I think there could be something to the thought.
Discussion ¬