We've girlied men so much that they can't lead. We want them to have emotions like us, we want them to have pedicures and massages with us, we want them to be our best friend. Then, after we've emasculated them, we bitch about the fact that they can't do anything with us.

1949 sounds perfect.

This could work for some, not others. Meh.

i like it.

as far as the security issue notasm brought up, while i totally understand and respect her point of view, my pov is different. no, i dont need to depend on anyone except myself. i WANT to depend on my husband. and i want him to be by my side as i am his. that makes me feel secure.

this got me thinking so i looked up the actual definition of 'secure' - "not liable to fail, yield or become displaced; as a support or fastening; affording safety, as a place; free from care, without anxiety"

i functioned just fine and dandy on my own and i thoroughly enjoyed it. however, there is a wonderful freedom in unquestioned support and safety within a marriage.

thanks dragonfly for sharing this- it gives me warm fuzzies ^_^

I agree with the men want to be significant and women want to be secure. My church has a "Love Shack" series that teaches something similar. Basically men want to be respected and women want to be loved.

He says to treat your man like a king and for men to care women like fine china.

My DH went with me for this service and came home saying he really learned a lot. He was going to treat me like our fine china- only let me out of the house once a year!

I think that individuals should strive to strengthen their own weaknesses through personal growth and should use their strengths to the advantage of their partnerships and family.

Thanks for the laugh

Sorry but the "Lead their wives" thing reminds me of a bull being lead with a nosering.
I think both sexes should respect each other, and partners should shore up each other's strengths and tolerate each other's weaknesses (without being a doormat).
I like the saying "your rights end where mine begin - and viceversa".

DH & I are more traditional. That said, we don't have a set of gender-behavior rules. We just kind of are that way naturally.

He is a big man with stronger opinions. I like that he tends to take the lead on a lot of things. I like the security & protection I feel when he does. But that certainly doesn't keep me from speaking up if I have a different thought or opinion about something, he would never suggest I let him take the lead because he's the man. We'd both fall over in laughter if he ever told me to get behind him.

He'd never own a man-purse, but I like that when I need him to hold my purse, he doesn't get stupid & squeamish about doing it for me.

I like it when he opens doors for me, but if I get to it first, I don't stand there & wait for him to do it.

He had a friend we used to hang out with at a bar after work. He's in his mid 50's now. We used to laugh at him because he was so particular about what he looked like. He'd take his t-shirts to the dry-cleaners & he'd get his eyebrows plucked.

I remember me & DH laughing SO hard one time when he told DH he was looking into getting his eyelids tucked.

I'm glad my DH is a manly man. I like the calluses on his hands & the scruff on his face. I'd be pissed if he was prettier than me.

The one rule listed that I tend to follow without fail is finishing him...EVERY time.

I am on board with all of this other than #1 in both categories. I am my wifes husband. It is my role to provide for our family and to make the difficult decisions when we can not agree on a decision that must be made. However, when she is better qualified to make a decision that must be made then I am, it is her role to do so. We do tend to follow fairly traditional gender roles though I do cook the occassional dinner and do the occassional housework. We resolve most issues associated with housework and laundry by outsourcing most of it. I take my laundry to the cleaners and we have someone come in to do the basic housework. This cuts down on historic tensions on these issues though she would far prefer that I participate in these things far more than I do. But hey, I am a man. What can I say. :?

I would not expect that my bride who is a dual major honors BS graduate, an MBA and a CPA needs for me to lead. Neither as a degreed engineer and MBA and a PMP do I need my bride to follow. There are times when each of us take on the lead or follow role.

We are equity partners in our marriage and our lives together. That includes in parenting my SS. We are also a team and in a team of 2 it is a delicate balance to maintain equity partnership when there is only a single authority and leader.

We can each completely depend on the other. Though as she is a CPA I am more than happy to let her deal with the family budgeting and mainenance of our bills. We coordinate in managing our investments. Though I am a 2x greater earner than she is (I am 12 years older and farther down my career path than she is) we both provide significant income to our household.

I am a strong personality and definately a Type A and expressive. My bride is very assertive but not nearly as dominant a personality. She is much more an analytical and observer. I was raised to respect women and my elders. I hold doors for my bride, I carry her shopping bags when I am with her when she shops and I give her my opinion if I like something she is wearing or if I don't like something she is wearing. To avoid any issue with whether she likes what I am wearing ..... she buys my shirts.

Yes, there is a marriage wheel. It takes equity partnership from both spouses. A wheel requires the point in contact with the road to lead. Sometimes that point is the husband and sometimes that point is the wife.

IMHO of course.

there is a principle that is very commonly used in society, and this is how we run our household- it works for us

on teams, everyone works together. you have a head coach, an assistant head coach, and the athletes. at major companies, you have the president, the v.p., and the rest of the business. in many countries, you have a Prez, a VP, and the rest of them. municipal governments have a Commission Chairman, a board of commissioners, and the citizens. i could go on. but there's a reason that arrangement is used in so many applications- in the majority of cases when it's handled correctly, it's incredibly effective and efficient.

but it does NOT mean one is subservient or one "lords it over" anyone else!!!