Ok let’s talk. I want to have a serious discussion about relational roles of a man and a woman. This discussion comes on the heels of both a radio program I listened to recently, as well as a running debate I’ve had with a good friend of mine who happens to be a very progressive and liberal thinking woman. This is a person I deeply respect. A great thinker. But every time this subject comes up, it’s battle stations ready!
Now before I pose the questions let me put down the ground rules so we can eliminate side arguments and certain defensive posturing.
1) In the relationship scenario – we are using as an example a good man and woman who are loving, responsible, and respectful. No need to say, “Well if he is a dog hell naw I ain’t submitting to him.”
2) The author of this post truly honors and respects the worth of a woman. Her contributions cannot be counted, and her abilities are almost limitless. There is no sexism involved that says a woman cannot do such and such.
3) These are general principles and should be taken that way. No need for extreme rebuttals on particular words and phrases. Please take the theme in perspective and give the author the benefit of the doubt. You may comment on the lines drawn in the sand areas. There are only one or two at most.
On to the discussion of the day:
As progressive of a thinker as I am, I still hold to some old fashioned values of chivalry. For instance I believe a man’s first priority towards his woman is to protect her. That could be interpreted physically, mentally or whatever. If a burglar were to enter the premises, I would not ask my woman to “go check on that.” She can be a combat expert in karate, M16s and explosives – doesn’t matter. I don’t think it’s her “role” to protect me in that situation. (Now if we are all fighting in some Bonnie and Clyde circumstance in public, that may be a different thing. I believe in opening doors and pulling out chairs in a restaurant. I believe a man should also love and cherish his woman. He should listen to her and do all he can to understand her as she develops and changes. I believe he should provide leadership and vision – providing a specific direction regarding the goals of the family etc. Does this mean that the woman is not providing ideas, feedback etc.? Of course not. In this day and age especially, the 21st Century woman is more versed in the general affairs of society than ever before. Her voice is vital and her contributions priceless. In the idea situation, the woman will compliment her man by having gifts and talents that he does not possess to add to the value of the relationship. He will do the same for her.
I believe a man’s purpose is to provide for his woman. Not that she can’t make money. She may even make more money than he does. He should not be intimidated by her career or her goals in the marketplace. He should support them. At the same time he should be looking to provide for the day to day needs. Depending on the lifestyle a family wants to live, nowadays it takes two incomes combined to make it happen. Still it should be his goal to better himself to the point of being responsible just in case she can’t produce for whatever reason, i.e. childbirth, sickness etc. This to me would be idea.
In terms of functioning day to day – couples should work together to make the household go round. Take advantage of one another’s talents and gifts to make things as smooth as possible. For instance, whichever person is good with organization may be the one to physically pay the bills. If she loves yard work, perhaps she will cut the grass or rake leaves. Just as well he may decorate the house if he has a visual perspective for decor. The roles for day to day ops, should not be delegated merely by gender.
Here is where it gets sticky in the aforementioned debate. I believe that a man should be the leader in the household and in the direction of the relationship. If he is smart, he will recognize the strength and wisdom of his woman and receive her input as vital. If he is leading in a direction that she does not approve of, he could be an emperor with no clothes. Men have blind-spots and his woman should be a partner of ideas of valued discussions. Still he is responsible for the safety and welfare of the family. Both man and woman should be “equal partners” in terms of value, but do not foster equal roles within the structure. Everyone is happy when they can agree, but if the couple don’t agree and a decision needs to be made he should make it after careful consideration. Being “the man” to me merely means being responsible for the overall direction and course of the relationship and the family structure. If it fails its on him unless he did all he could and his woman simply rebelled or decided not to follow his leadership. Again this is assuming both parties are totally committed to the success of the relationship and family.
Furthermore, in my opinion a discerning woman will realize that her brilliance is never undermined when she accepts these precepts. As a matter of fact, any man will tell you if his woman is not happy, the whole house is not happy. Any leading that he does she has to “let” him do anyway. She can in her wisdom and love build him up to be the greatest leader he can be, or she can tear him down and attempt to make mincemeat out of him. Like it or not, James Brown said it best. “This is a man’s world. (directional functioning) But it wouldn’t be nothing, without a woman, boy or girl.” I’ve long had a saying, that God’s great equalizer to a male dominated society is a woman. Because I don’t care how much a man accomplishes, his greatest desire after his purpose it to be loved, needed, appreciated, and respected by his woman. Period. So she is invaluable – and as I said women today especially are more skilled, sharp and able than ever before – and have carried men for a long time, especially black men in the midst of the struggle we have faced within society post slavery, Jim Crow, self identity crisis etc. What a woman has to do and what a woman should be doing to me are two different things.
The benefits of the progressive woman are obvious. The advances have come hard fought and well earned. Our society is still not progressive enough in my view in appreciating, protecting, and valuing women. But the downside is this competitive paradigm for a power struggle. Equal partners in terms of input and value does not mean equal parts of functionality. I believe most women accept and even embrace the theory. The problem becomes an issue of trust because of a negative track record with immature, ignorant, (ignorant in the derogotory as well as the without knowledge sense) and selfish men. (Of which I have been in my day)
My friend thinks this is a sexist way of thinking. That equal partners means equal everything. There are two chiefs and no one is more in charge or responsible than the other.
So chime in on this discussion. What do ya’ll think?? Are my Fred Flintstone ideas merely prehistoric? Is the old school way the best way?
Please respond with love and intelligence as I have presented it with such.