How Do I Get My Husband to Do Housework?!?! (Part 3: Giving Back Responsibility)

soroush-karimi-507824-unsplash

While being unable to change your husband through your attitude or great communication skills may sound bleak, this doesn’t mean you’re doomed to handle everything by yourself. You still have power and control over your own actions. You can control what you will do and what you will not do. You can decide what you will tolerate and what you won’t tolerate. That is, you can give your husband’s responsibilities back to him, and you can reset your boundaries so that your husband’s irresponsibility hurts you as little as possible.

We can give our husbands back full responsibility for their actions: the mental burden of remembering and thinking about those tasks, the emotional response when it isn’t completed, and the hassle and consequences of dealing with undone tasks.

A great place to start is the responsibility of picking up after oneself. Even the smallest of children are responsible for cleaning up after themselves. It’s absolutely unacceptable for any individual, especially an adult, to delegate this most basic responsibility to someone else. A grown man is responsible for throwing his trash in the garbage, putting his laundry in the laundry basket, cleaning up the messes he makes, placing his dishes in the dishwasher, and putting away the things he takes out.

If you’re doing any of those things, stop picking up after your husband. Release the full mental, emotional, and physical responsibility of picking up to him. Don’t give a flying flip to his mess. Turn a blind eye. It’s his responsibility. Let him be bothered by it if and when he’s bothered by it.

And that’s key: you’re releasing the responsibility to him not as a manipulative move to get him to change but as a gift to yourself. The difference between releasing full responsibility and trying to manipulate him into changing is noted in your emotional response. If you’ve truly released responsibility over his actions, you’ll see the clothes he threw next to the laundry basket, shrug, and step over them. If you’re trying to manipulate him into changing, you’ll see those clothes, get agitated, and scream a long list of grievances at him when he comes home that night.

It’s not that it’s wrong to feel frustrated, embarrassed, maybe even a bit disdainful when you see your husband’s chronic irresponsibility. Feelings are feelings. But it’s a fine line between feeling and expressing legitimate feelings because that’s your emotional response, and feeling and expressing legitimate feelings because you still feel responsible for getting your husband to change.

For some women, it’s difficult to step over piles of laundry or see stacks of unwashed dishes. Those messes affect their emotional balance, or make taking care of their own tasks difficult. In these cases, not picking up after their husbands still leaves wives inconvenienced and suffering the consequences of their husbands’ irresponsibility.

Here’s where you get creative and come up with ways to disentangle yourself from the consequences and inconveniences of your husband’s bad choices. If he leaves trash, dirty dishes, or belongings strewn out in shared spaces and isn’t bothered by them, put them in a place where they will not bother you but will only bother him — his desk, his side of the bed, his lounge chair. If it’s really bad, you might move your belongings to the guest room so that you each have a space of your own to keep or not keep at your choosing without inconveniencing the other person.

This concept of disentangling yourself from your husband’s rightful consequences applies to things other than picking up after oneself. If you’re sick of scheduling your husband’s appointments, reminding him about them, and rescheduling them when he misses them, stop. If he doesn’t care enough about his health, his teeth, or his haircut, that’s sad and unfortunate, but it’s not your job to care for him. If he misses an important meeting because he failed to write it down, keep a planner, or check the planner regularly, that’s frustrating, but it’s his responsibility to face the consequences — whether it’s rescheduling, angering a friend, or missing out on an opportunity.

Does this sound cruel? It can look like cruelty if we’re used to believing the lie that a good wife will bend over backwards to take care of her husband. Our culture promotes the idea that men are helpless; that marriage is designed to make them better; and that good wives exist to do all the things those silly, dear men just plumb forget about.

This is ridiculous. Grown men are capable of doing everything their wives do for them. They may choose not to do everything their wives do for them, but that should be on them.

And on the receiving end, yeah, it certainly doesn’t feel great. But as a Formerly Horrible Homemaker, I can assure you that I only changed into a Fairly Decent Homemaker because my husband stopped picking up after me, and I was the only one living with the consequences of my mess.

Words, emotions, even guilt — none of those things changed my mind the way dealing with the consequences of my undisciplined life did.

Just as I took twenty-four years to feel the effects of my lack of discipline, our husbands have their own journey in becoming aware of their problem, feeling motivated to change, discovering the root of their issues, and finding the tools needed for their transformation. You can’t do any of that for him, and you’re not supposed to. 

We have to let our husbands make mistakes and feel the consequences of their irresponsibility. We have to let them make the journey toward responsibility in their own way and their own time. We can offer insight and support, but trying to change them will only cause us frustration and stall our husbands’ journeys. We also must relinquish the guarantee that our husbands will make the changes needed to be equal partners in household matters. Maybe they will never change. That’s heartbreaking, but it’s 100% their responsibility — which means you don’t have to feel responsible for it.

Obviously, the nature of marriage and living together means that wives will still be affected. Some irresponsibilities are so severe that a wife cannot disentangle herself from the consequences of her husband’s choices without separation. But I’m finding that in my particular circumstances, with a husband who cares about equality and my happiness, just freeing myself from the lies that drive me nuts, figuring out the real reasons why he doesn’t follow through, and giving back his responsibilities to him alone makes a huge difference in our marriage — and the household.

Advertisements

How Do I Get My Husband to Do Housework?!?! (Part 2: Why He’s Not Following Through)

ricardo-gomez-angel-707638-unsplash

What with gender roles, enabling parents, uncommunicated expectations, and personal problems, sometimes your husband just doesn’t know what to do or how to do it. And wives aren’t immune to the same flakiness when it comes to certain tasks too.

There’s a lot to hash out when it comes to household responsibilities. These are the conversations I’ve found productive.

Decide what tasks need to be done, when they need to be done, how they need to be done, and who needs to do them. 

There’s often a big disconnect between husbands and wives about what even needs to be done, much less when and how. Your childhood households place emphases on different things. Different levels of tolerance for mess lead to one spouse pulling her hair, while the other doesn’t even notice a problem.

Upbringing makes a huge difference, too. Adults with enabling parents may not know even the first thing about what’s involved in running a home. Spouses who come from homes with gendered roles may be unaware of what’s involved in a “man’s job” or a “woman’s job.”

I used to scoff at the idea of homemaking being a full-time job. Scrub a couple of toilets, wash the dishes, throw in a load of laundry. No big deal. Once I became the full-time homemaker, however, I quickly sang a different tune. It’s not just household tasks. Scheduling appointments, staying on top of communications, finances, planning, organizing, shopping, researching, and learning new skills, as well as keeping up with regular chores, all involved more steps and time than I thought. Just when I thought I’d finally got on top of everything, another bill would come in, something would break, and the realization that I really needed to declutter the hall closet would come crashing down.

Just the mental load alone was enough to drive me batty.

All that to say, if your husband isn’t aware of what needs to be done, he won’t know to do it.

When and how those tasks should be done is another important conversation that involves laying out preferences. In any relationship, somebody is bound to be more bothered than the other about different sorts of things. After I yelled at my husband for being a slob, my visiting sister commented that my personal tolerance for mess would make me difficult to live with. Ouch. Were I living with my sister, would be the slob taking advantage of her neat ways.

It’s all about perspective and preference. There’s nothing intrinsically “worse” about leaving a full bag of recycling by the door for a couple of days if it’s not bothering anybody, and there’s nothing intrinsically “better” about taking out the recycling right away. You could make great arguments for and against those practices. Our differing preferences for what constitutes “clean,” “organized,” and “livable” are not necessarily better or worse than our husbands’.

We have to come up with timelines and standards that work for both spouses. This may involve letting go of some preferences, or agreeing to preferences you don’t really care about.

This solves the exhausting conversation we’ve all had: “I thought we agreed it was your job to take those boxes to storage!”

“I know! I’ll take them out eventually.”

“It’s been two weeks. Gosh, you are so lazy. I’ll just take them out myself.”

It’s not necessarily true that the offender is lazy or will never follow through on his promise — not anymore than we are, with all the things we procrastinate on. It could really be that he’s not bothered by the boxes as much as you are or is prioritizing other things.

If it matters to us when and how tasks get done, we need to communicate those preferences and agree on them. Otherwise, we need to give the other spouse space to take care of his responsibilities in the way and time he chooses — or do it ourselves without complaint.

The final component of this conversation is who does what. Permanent task delegation — transferring the mental and practical burden of doing certain tasks — has made a huge difference. I know exactly what I’m supposed to do, what he’s supposed to do, and what responsibilities we must hash out along the way.

This saves us from vague arguments over feeling like we do everything, as we can pinpoint exactly which task is causing problems, and we don’t exert any emotion or responsibility toward the things the other is supposed to do. If we want help with our task, the other spouse is usually willing to contribute, but the responsibility to delegate specific tasks within that area lies squarely with the person to whom that area belongs.

These sorts of conversations are especially key for stay-at-home moms married to working husbands. Since we’ve been dealing with the home and kids all day, we intimately know the routines, the needs, the finished tasks, and the priorities of the household. When our husbands walk through the door, they may feel out of their depth and uncertain where to begin, just as we would if we walked into their workplaces and were expected to know what, when, and how to do things. Since they haven’t been stepping over the pile of dirty laundry all day, it will likely not occur to them to notice, much less make it an urgent priority.

Even if you’re not a stay-at-home mom, it’s important to make our homes a truly egalitarian environment where you welcome your husband’s preferences as well as his participation. Sometimes I see wives complaining about their husbands’ lack of involvement while making it clear that they view their home as the woman’s domain — insisting on certain decorating styles, criticizing how husbands do things, keeping the home off limits to the husband’s projects, or relegating his “own” space to a den or garage.

If our husbands have no say in how the home looks, operates, or is used, they’re not going to take responsibility. Our husbands can’t feel a sense of ownership if we expect them to do everything we find important on the timetable we find important in the way we think is best, with no room at the table for their preferences. Micromanagement discourages responsibility. 

We all naturally fail to notice or ignore tasks that aren’t our responsibility. Deciding who does what and making space for both of your preferences for when and how those tasks are accomplished eliminates this problem.

Put yourself under the mental load of the other person.

The first breakthrough in my marriage surrounding household tasks was the concept of “the mental load.” The mental load is all the emotion, mental effort, and ultimate responsibility it takes to manage things. It’s not a big deal to physically get in the car, drive to Meijer, and buy things off a shopping list. But making the shopping list? That involves knowing what we have and don’t have; deciding what we want to eat; figuring out the ingredients necessary for those recipes; factoring in diet, nutrition, and picky eaters; perhaps planning around the sales at different stores; writing it all down; and choosing when, where, and who’s going shopping. That’s the mental load.

This is what’s so aggravating when husbands say, “Just tell me what to do! I want to help.” When wives are burnt out, they don’t need help with the physical tasks. They need someone to shoulder the mental load — which is why I think it’s so important to divide up specific tasks and their mental loads between each spouse.

Usually, the mental load of everything falls to the woman, and it’s hard for husbands to even understand what their wives are talking about because they’ve never encountered the pressures and expectations society puts on women.

I explained this concept to my husband multiple times, and it didn’t seem to stick. He still failed to contribute to the household in the ways we agreed, or understand how much his failure stressed me out. I chalked this up to laziness and lack of care for me.

One day, he complained about the mental load he was bearing alone. I almost laughed in his face, but asked him to explain what he meant. He listed a whole bunch of things — mostly related to finances, like investments, savings, planning for large purchases, insurance — for which he alone shouldered the mental burden. He reminded me of the many times he’d asked me to look up something in order to help him make a big decision, and I’d failed to do the research I’d agree to do, or contribute in a meaningful way. He felt overwhelmed, alone, and frustrated with my flakiness.

Finding myself in his shoes as the “lazy, uncaring” spouse, I realized our promises to take responsibility for a task often failed because of the learning curve the task required. We meant well, and we agreed that it was fair to split responsibilities, but the mental load was too overwhelming. It was far easier to face a spouse’s wrath than put in the effort to learn, especially if we knew the other person would cave and do it for us. After all, we didn’t really care about the task in the first place.

When I saw my own tendency to shirk responsibilities with which I was unfamiliar, I gave him the same grace and understanding I wanted him to show me.

It might not be the learning curve that’s holding your husband back from taking responsibility. Maybe it’s perfectionism, depression, discouragement, other marriage or personal issues, or just confusion about what’s involved in the task he agreed to. Continuing to harp on him for failing to follow through without talking about the underlying reasons will be unproductive and frustrating for both of you.

I also realized that communicating preferences, understanding where the other spouse was coming from, and agreeing on a task list would not magically get us to follow through on what we said we would do. It was a necessary start, but the real change came when we put the tasks back on the responsible party.

Check back tomorrow for the last installment of this series!

How Do I Get My Husband to Do Housework?!?! (Part 1: The Lies That Drive You Nuts)

kinga-cichewicz-547999-unsplash

The number one complaint I hear from all wives, especially egalitarian wives, is that their husbands don’t equally share the mental or physical burden of household tasks. Sure, they may “help” if their wives ask them (or say they’ll help, but leave the task undone, or actually help, but do a haphazard job). Even more aggravating, many husbands don’t even pick up after themselves, unofficially delegating the family housework and their own mess to the wives’ task list.

This is obviously not a sustainable living situation. But how do you get a husband to take responsibility for his own stuff, much less his share of the housework?

Since I am a Formerly Horrible Homemaker, as well as the primary homemaker, I understand a bit of both sides of this hopeless mess. This is a series of thoughts in three parts:

Part 1: The Lies That Drive You Nuts

Part 2: Why He’s Not Following Through

Part 3: Giving Back Responsibility

Let Go of These Lies

These lies make your husband’s lack of involvement even more aggravating:

  • It’s selfish of me to want him to take care of his own stuff and pitch in with the housework. This is my opportunity to serve. Doing a kind deed for an otherwise responsible person is a great way to show love. Bearing a burden for someone who can’t do it on his own is an acceptable sacrifice. Doing someone else’s job that he’s capable of doing himself is enabling — even if it’s not that big of a sacrifice for you to do it for him.
  • But he works so hard and comes home so tired. You work hard too. You’re tired too. In fact, you’re so burnt out that you’re exploding at your husband over dishes. Your anger, resentment, and despair are all signs of imbalance. You don’t need to quantify who “works harder” or is “more tired.” That’s too subjective of a thing to be calculated. You’re both tired, you both work hard, and still the house needs cleaning, the bills need paying, and the kids need baths. All of those things are equally true. You don’t need to dismiss either one of your conflicting needs.
  • If he’s egalitarian, this shouldn’t be that hard for him! We all have blind spots and imperfections. Believing a thing and doing a thing are two separate steps in spiritual growth. Household tasks have a practical learning curve not covered in conceptual theology.
  • I can change my husband’s mind. You can’t. You’ve tried everything, after all, and nothing has worked. No amount of tears, calm, anger, or patience will get him to change. No matter how perfect your communication is or how many “I statements” you use, you will not talk him into changing. No length of silent treatments will convince him to get his act together. While expressing feelings, remaining calm, and communicating effectively are helpful, true change comes from inner motivation — something that nobody but he can muster.

Perhaps the biggest lie is this: If I do kind things for my husband, he’ll do kind things for me.

Popularized by books like The Five Love Languages, The Love Dare, and every patriarchal book directed at women ever, this law of reciprocity dupes us into thinking that we can change our husbands’ behavior through kindness. It creates more helplessness, and thus more frustration, because we’re stuffing our feelings, lowering our expectations, and surrendering our agency in order to passively control our husbands — and it doesn’t work, especially when it comes to sharing the burden of parenting and household tasks.

One time at work, I noticed a task wasn’t done, and I began doing it as a favor. Another coworker stopped me: “Don’t do it. If you do it for them, they’ll never learn, and you’ll be stuck doing it forever.”

If that isn’t the truest statement ever said about spouses and household tasks, I don’t know what is.

You’ll go crazy thinking that picking up your husband’s socks for him every day will inspire him to schedule all the outstanding appointments. He’ll be grateful, no doubt — so grateful, that he’ll gratefully let you continue to show him such kindness for the next thirty years of marriage.

After freeing myself from these lies, I realized my husband was probably just as confused as I was about which responsibilities were his and which were mine.

Part 2 is coming out tomorrow!

Meaningless Marriage Advice: “Put God First”

beatriz-perez-moya-513499-unsplash

At every wedding, I hear marriage advice that sounds Christian-y and spiritualish, but makes no intelligible, practical sense.

The advice I hear most often, taking up space somewhere in every Christian wedding ceremony, is this: “Put God first in your marriage.” That, we’re told, is the secret to a lasting, happy marriage.

What the heck does this even mean?

“Putting God first in your marriage” implies a dichotomy, even a competition, between loving God and loving your spouse. Does “putting God first” mean talking to God before talking to your spouse when you start or end the day? Does it mean spending more time with God than with your spouse? Does it mean heeding God’s call to ministry at the expense of your marriage? In what practical way should you “put God first” ahead of your spouse?

Oddly enough, marriage sermons never give specifics on what “putting God first” looks like, other than vaguely “prioritizing” your relationship with God. But it’s one thing to say that your relationship with God impacts your marriage; it’s another thing to imply a conflict between your marriage and your spiritual life. It’s one thing to say that your relationship with God is important; it’s another to say that your relationship with God is the key to a happy, lasting marriage.

I understand the concept of how a strong relationship with God can and does affect your interactions with your spouse. If you find peace, strength, grace, and joy in your relationship with God, you can be peaceful, strong, gracious, and joyful in your relationship with your spouse.

But that is an if. Sometimes the transference of of peace, strength, grace, and joy drawn from your relationship with God runs into a hiccup when applied to marriage with another frustrating human being. Strong Christians still have marital struggles, whether self- or spousal-afflicted. Strong Christians still get divorced or live unhappily together. Some strong Christians are utterly nasty, unloving people, or good people with toxic or dysfunctional relational skills. Prayer, Scriptural study, knowledge of doctrine, good character, and a strong relationship with Jesus don’t always give you a leg up in figuring out sexual dysfunction or communication differences or how to split the chores equally.

Even Christians with an admirable spiritual life have blind spots, wounds, and faulty ideologies that can make marriage difficult. And non-Christians have happy marriages without any relationship with the Christian God whatsoever.

It’s objectively not true that simply having a productive relationship with God guarantees a happy, lasting marriage. It’s objectively not true that you cannot have a happy, lasting marriage without a productive relationship with God. When Dr. John Gottman created scientific studies on happy couples, “putting God first” was not a universal factor among them.

My guess is that the advice of “putting God first” as an almost silver bullet to marriage stems from a simplistic view of spirituality and human need. As I already said above, devotion to God, whether in the form of spiritual disciplines or an emotional connection, can do wonders in transforming the self into a spouse more suited to love and more enduring in inevitable marriage problems.

But just as the Bible does not and cannot give the specific medical advice needed to cure cancer, just as a relationship with God doesn’t guarantee prosperity, just as adherence to Christian principles and spiritual practices doesn’t stave off starvation, “putting God first” (whatever that means to you) does not, cannot, and will not solve marital problems alone. Spirituality may not even be a major component of either the problem or the solution.

There are relational and pyschological wounds that require more technical and marriage-specific help than “putting God first” requires. Acknowledging this doesn’t deny the importance of spirituality or a relationship with God, but it puts more emphasis on identifying the actual issues causing problems in the marriage and thus the solutions to them. Plus, it acknowledges the obnoxious but unavoidable reality that often the faithful suffer and the unfaithful prosper, and that the faithful are imperfect and broken too.

Unless a wedding sermon defines and qualifies “putting God first” with the above conditions, I consider this pithy little phrase just another well-meaning but meaningless bit of marriage advice.

How I Kicked My Perfectionism

the-creative-exchange-682637-unsplash

Anyone who knows me knows that I’m not a neat person. Once I was out from under my mom’s reminders, I never made my bed, washed my dishes in a reasonable time frame, or kept my room clutter-free.

It didn’t bother me too much at first, but by the time I became a mother, the guilt caught up with me. When company came over, I scrambled to pull a thin facade of cleanliness and discipline over the disaster zones. Something had to give.

I tried excuses: “I’m a new mom; I’m tired.” I tried adjusting my expectations: “Who says a disciplined person needs to have her bed made every day? Mess is a sign of genius, anyway!” I tried psychoanalyzing: “All those years as a stay-at-home daughter guilted me into thinking it’s my duty as a woman to keep the house clean above all else!” I tried prioritizing: “I’d rather spend time with family than keep my house clean.” I tried rationalizing: “The floor’s just going to get dirty again, so why exert too much effort to keep it clean?”

Nothing worked to either alleviate my guilt or motivate me to clean.

Drowning, I turned to Marla Cilley, a.k.a “The Flylady,” who promised to teach inept homemakers like me how to get their house in order once and for all. The very first step was getting my kitchen sink clear and shiny before bed, every day.

I thought that was a stupid and meaningless thing to focus on, but desperate times called for desperate measures. I shined my sink as baby step number one, eventually adding on other routines throughout the month — laying out next day’s clothes, making my bed every morning, and giving the bathroom sink and toilet a quick swish and swipe every morning. I followed her daily missions, decluttering and cleaning different zones in my house.

It’s been two months, and my apartment is in great shape. Not perfect, but I feel in control of the mess and free of guilt. If company drops by, I no longer rush to shove stuff into closets, slam doors to hide messy rooms, or apologize profusely for not having enough time to clean a cruddy toilet. I now can’t imagine not making my bed or folding up the throw blanket after I use it. I get up in the morning and immediately start putting away dishes. I’ve turned into my industrious mother — I, the girl who left a bowl of encrusted macaroni out in her dorm room for months.

What changed?

I figured out the root issue: I wasn’t undisciplined or lazy, per se. I didn’t need a new outlook on the joy of cleaning. I just needed to kick my perfectionism.

In all of her emails and articles, the Flylady constantly hammered perfectionism out of me. I did only a little each day. I couldn’t tidy up my house in one go like Marie Kondo insisted, but I could shine a sink. I religiously prohibited myself from doing any cleaning other than what the Flylady prescribed in the baby steps.

“We do what we can today, and then we do a little more tomorrow,” said the Flylady.

“Progress over perfection!” her emails reminded me.

Something over nothing, I chanted to myself whenever I wanted to throw in the towel.

This simple phrase has revolutionized my life.

Without realizing it, I had expected myself to be able to do the impossible (make your apartment look perfect all the time!), or the possible in an impossible time frame (clean everything even though your baby kept you up all night!). Again and again, I failed those impossible expectations, heaping shame, guilt, and discouragement over me until I was too petrified to do anything productive.

Subconsciously I was thinking, “Why wash the dishes when I don’t have the energy to keep the rest of the house clean?” The Flylady taught me to think, “I don’t have the energy to clean the rest of the house, but I can wash the dishes and be done for the day.” And not only “be done,” but to celebrate that small accomplishment, to focus on what I could do and what I did do instead of everything I couldn’t do or didn’t want to do.

With my perfectionist expectations exploded, I succeeded all the time. The successes gave me more energy and motivation to do a little more the next day, or to bounce back a couple days after that if I didn’t do much the next day, after all.

was disciplined! I wasn’t lazy! I could keep my house clean! And out of that newly-found self, I kept challenging myself without burning out.

“Your house didn’t get messy in one day,” the Flylady said, “and you won’t be able to get in clean in one day, either.”

Words I now live by.

I truly feel like I’ve kicked perfectionism’s hold over my life. And not just in the housecleaning area — I apply the mantra “something over nothing” to developing habits or tackling projects in other areas of my life, like using kinder words to my husband, writing, and working out.

“I don’t want to work out today,” I’ll say to myself. “I’m too tired. But I should work out today. Do I do something I hate, or do I feel guilty for the rest of the day?”

“No,” myself will say back, “it’s not that you don’t want to work out today. You just don’t want to drive to the gym and run on the elliptical for half an hour. What about cycling while watching Netflix? What about yoga at home? What about ten minutes on the elliptical? What’s something you do want to do, instead of doing nothing at all?

The biggest gift I got from learning how to keep my apartment clean wasn’t a clean apartment. It was learning that when I dodged my perfectionism and did something, I could do whatever I set my mind to.

Slowly. Imperfectly. But eventually.

And that’s something, indeed.

A Pragmatic Defense of Civility

nina-strehl-140734-unsplashCivility is a dirty word in social justice circles right now.

I understand why. It’s ridiculous to care more about being polite than about babies being torn away from their mothers. It’s backwards to worry about niceties when human lives and human dignity are at stake. And often “they” interpret passion as incivility, anyway. “They” don’t like how it makes them feel, so “they” call it incivility to no longer feel responsible for their uncomfortable feelings. To “them,” no form of protest, no matter how respectful, peaceful, or carefully thought out, will ever be seen as civil simply because the act of protesting, resisting, and making “them” uncomfortable is uncivil.

But let’s be honest: sometimes, many times, people in social justice circles are uncivil, out of control, and just plain rude. They attack people outside of their circles; they attack people within their circles. Say the wrong word, the wrong opinion, and you’ve unleashed your doom.

I understand that too. I want to scream when I see dismissive memes. I want to shoot back sarcastic and mean-spirited zingers when I hear callous and ill-informed opinions. I want to spew obscenities at the people doing disgusting and dehumanizing things. I often feel that rude people deserve rude responses, that jerks get what’s coming to them, that people who don’t care about others don’t require my care, either. An eye for an eye. Anger with anger. Hate with hate.

I could ramble a lot about my conflicting feelings regarding justice and mercy within the Christian tradition. Regardless of my philosophical and theological beliefs, when it comes to altercations with stupid, rude, and/or callous people, when it comes to trying to change people’s minds, I still cherish civility as a virtue.

People may deserve a good chewing out when they fail to live up to basic human decency. Maybe a good, loud, simplistic, angry rant fulfills some sort of cosmic justice. Maybe I shouldn’t have to police my tone due to all the unfair things I’ve put up with; maybe I should get to be as angry as I want and speak out of that anger as much as I want.

I mean this sincerely: maybe that truly is justice. It doesn’t seem fair to me that people who have already put up with so much hatred and discrimination, sometimes against their very personhood, should even have to think about their tone in voicing legitimate complaints. I support understanding where people are coming from and letting them speak unfiltered, hearing what they say even if the way they say it is offensive.

But my defense of civility is almost purely pragmatic. Basic human biology prevents anger, hate, rudeness, and anything of that nature from being an effective tool of persuasion. That’s not to say that love, kindness, and civility will change any minds either (see the second paragraph), but hate, rudeness, and incivility definitely won’t — or they’ll at least make it more difficult.

When we say whatever we want to say however we want to say it, we trigger fight or flight responses. It is nearly impossible for someone in a fight or flight state to meaningfully absorb information, much less change their mind and make necessary changes. Some particularly gracious, patient, or obtuse people can struggle against the fight or flight state to engage with and process what you’re yelling at them. But that’s a difficult thing to do.

It’s inevitable that saying uncomfortable things will make people feel uncomfortable. Showing emotion of any kind, even if not directed toward another person, may trigger offense or anxiety. Even saying uncomfortable things civilly may trigger fight or flight responses, especially if that person has had those uncomfortable things screamed at them before.

That’s not on you. That’s on them.

And honestly, you might need a space or a moment to just speak your unfiltered mind, civility be damned. You might need catharsis. That’s fine too.

But if you want the best shot at having the other person hear you, understand you, and change her mind, then it is on you to speak the truth in a way that circumvents that fight or flight response as much as possible. It’s not fair, but it’s reality. For this purpose, I defend civility as a virtue.

 

Setting Boundaries with Children

kiana-bosman-569434-unsplash

“Do no harm, take no sh*t.” — my new parenting philosophy, via Kay Bruner

I get stressed over hearing my baby cry or seeing a student upset after I enforce a limit. Am I being cruel and unresponsive, I fret, or am I being the calm, confident leader children need to feel secure?

One way I’ve been processing that question is by thinking in terms of boundaries. In an interview on Parenting Forward with Cindy Wang Brandt, Kay Bruner describes boundaries as “what’s me and what’s not me.”

I personally struggle with taking responsibility for children’s emotions. If my baby cries, I feel guilty. I feel like a failure. I feel like I need to stop his crying since, somehow, I caused the crying. I feel like I need to make the crying stop at any cost, including my sanity. Parenting success means my baby is tear-free as much as possible.

This is an impossible parenting goal. It’s impossible precisely because I am not responsible for my baby’s emotions. 

It’s important that we meet our children’s needs and hear their desires. Not hearing desires or not meeting needs disrespects children. But meeting every desire leads to child-centric homes and frazzled parents. In order to avoid any of those parenting pitfalls, we must distinguish between needs and desires, and even further, identify their specific need.

Take the age-old situation of moms being unable to use the bathroom alone.

When your two-year-old is pounding on the bathroom door screaming for you to let her in, you might determine that her real need has nothing to do with you in the first place; she may be hungry, tired, bored, or upset from you telling her she couldn’t eat pennies.

But maybe she really does need time with Mommy. Nevertheless, her legitimate need for quality time with Mom does not mean you need to fulfill her desire to be with Mom right then in the bathroom in violation of your legitimate desire for privacy.

In this situation, nobody’s desire is “wrong.” It’s okay for you to want to go to the bathroom by yourself. It’s okay for her to want to be in the bathroom with you right then. It’s okay for her to express extreme frustration that she’s not getting what she wants. It’s okay for you to feel annoyed at her for feeling that way.

“What’s me”: holding the limit of using the bathroom by yourself, expressing your emotions in a healthy way, acknowledging and legitimizing her needs and desires, and meeting the correctly identified need once you’re done in the restroom.

“What’s not me”: preventing her from feeling upset, preventing her from expressing that upset, or being responsible for stopping her emotions.

“I’m not letting you come into the bathroom with me. I want privacy,” you tell her through the locked door. “I hear that that makes you upset. It makes you feel like crying and yelling. It’s okay to feel upset. I will come be with you when I am done using the bathroom.”

Maybe she stops crying and tearfully says, “Okay.” Great! Maybe you find her sitting quietly outside the door waiting for you. Awesome.

Or maybe she continues to scream. Maybe she even starts kicking the door in response to your calmly set limit. That’s okay too. All outcomes are parenting successes, because you set the boundary and held to it. You did what you were supposed to do. You were never responsible for making her emotions stop in the first place. 

Janet Lansbury reiterates that our responsibility is usually just listening, accepting, and acknowledging our children’s emotions without fixing them:

Instead of feeling responsible for preventing or fixing crying, we first accept it so that we can understand and accurately address what is being communicated.

Instead of perceiving feelings as a call to action, we work on staying calm and listening so our child can share and feel truly heard. …

Instead of acting out of fear, we lead with trust in our child’s basic competency.

This is why it’s important to set boundaries with our children: without boundaries, we disrespect their basic competency to navigate respectful relationships.

Without boundaries, we model an anxious, exhausting, unsustainable relationship.

Without boundaries, we teach them that it’s other people’s job to prevent their emotions and solve their problems, a textbook lesson in co-dependency.

Without boundaries, we imply that having emotions is undesirable, that a good life involves no tears, no inconveniences, and no disappointments.

It’s not about being a “tough” parent. It’s not even about putting on your own proverbial oxygen mask in order to help your child strap on his. It’s about supporting your child through the hard and necessary process of developing healthy relationships with others and with his own emotions.

In order to teach him respect for others, he needs to respect your needs and desires. In order to teach him respect for himself, he needs to see you respecting your needs and desires.

Of course, relationships are give and take, even parent/child relationships. Sometimes you say, “I’m not reading the Peppa Pig book again tonight because if I read it one more time, I will literally go insane.” And sometimes you read that Peppa Pig book again even though you will literally go insane.

Obviously, children require our support, especially the younger they are. They are more immature and less self-regulated, easily overwhelmed by their needs, desires, and the emotions accompanying them. If we ignore their bids for attention and support, we cripple them emotionally. But children are not helpless, and they rarely need our help in the form of fixing or eliminating their problems.

Yesterday, a student was building a spinner exclusively out of black Brain Flakes. He needed just a few more to complete his spinner, but another friend had the last three black Brain Flakes. She declined to part with them.

“Ugh, I want the black ones!” he cried.

“You could use different colors,” another friend suggested.

“No, I wanted it all black!” He looked to me, hoping I’d use my Magical Teacher Powers to force his friend into sharing the black ones.

I really wanted to. I knew how frustrating and disappointing it was to spend so much time creating something only to have it fall through. I could easily demand that his friend hand over the pieces, getting rid of the problem and his negative emotions in one fell swoop. It might spare me the annoyance of defusing a tantrum, too. But it’s important to me that children share willingly (another type of boundary) and that students not use my authority to coerce their friends into giving them what they want.

Trying to support him through this problem, I said, “That’s too bad that she won’t share with you. You could either use different colors like your friend suggested, or if you want your spinner to be all one color, you could start over with a new color.”

He sighed, visibly upset. Then he perked up and said, “I’m going to make an orange spinner!”

And he did.

Spanking Didn’t Traumatize Me, and I Still Won’t Do It

spank-kid

I’m just going to say it: spanking goes against everything I believe as a parent, educator, and human being. Even as a kid, I felt in my gut that spanking is unethical, harmful, and a violation of children’s rights.

Oh, great. One of those special snowflakes claiming that spanking traumatizes children. Look, what’s wrong with kids today is that they need a good whipping. None of this time out, trying to reason with them stuff. You can’t reason with kids. The only thing they listen to is a swat on the hiney. My parents spanked me when I was growing up, I spanked my kids, and you know what? None of us were traumatized. In fact, we all grew up to be respectful, well-behaved people. I’m glad I was spanked.  

This is many people’s experience: spanking is either neutral or positive. It didn’t harm them, it didn’t harm their kids, and they credit spanking with their development as decent human beings. Even though the American Psychological Association claims there’s a strong case against any benefits to spanking, these pro-spanking anecdata are compelling enough for many spanked children to grow up and spank their own kids.

And I’ll be frank: I don’t consider myself traumatized from spanking. I view it as unnecessary, ineffective, and deeply hurtful, but not traumatic. I don’t credit spanking with making me who I am today, but I don’t credit spanking for making my adult life problematic.

The thing is, spanking doesn’t need to be traumatic in order for it to be wrong.

The idea of purposefully hitting a child with a hand or an object, the idea of intentionally causing pain, goes against my ethical beliefs. “Do no harm” is a mantra of mine that of course extends to the vulnerable children under my care. Yes, (emotional) pain happens during discipline of any sort, but I believe it is never appropriate to intentionally cause pain, whether emotional or physical, or to leverage pain as punishment.

It’s such a slippery slope. When does spanking become hitting, beating, violence, or abuse? When it leaves a mark? What if you meant well and it leaves a mark accidentally? When it causes too much pain? Why is too much pain bad if pain is the thing that turns your child into a good human? And how do you determine too much pain? When your child cries or begs you to stop? Isn’t the whole point to cause them enough pain to get a strong emotional response so that they never do wrong again?

Spanking advocates often point to the emotional state of the parent as the thing that draws the fine line between appropriate and inappropriate corporal punishment. Never spank in anger is the rule.

Personally, I find it downright chilling that any loving parent could calmly and quietly spank their children, especially if the child is crying out in pain. I find it less disturbing that a parent would strike their child out of anger and frustration, then realize with horror what they did. Instead, with this model, parents make a calculated decision to inflict physical pain upon their children, with no remorse whatsoever.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t loving parents spanking their children. Of course there are. The overwhelming majority of parents spanking their children do so out love and fear for their child’s future, not because they enjoy seeing their child suffer. But that makes it all the worse: their love and empathy, their strong parental instinct to protect their child from harm, gets turned off and replaced with a conviction that physically harming their child is the most loving thing to do. This is one instance where that niggling mom guilt is right on the money.

On a personal note, I am not perfect enough as a mother to have spanking in my discipline arsenal without risking a harmful outburst. I am not always patient, kind, or self-controlled. This is why I cannot have corporal punishment of any kind as an option, even as a last resort. I can’t risk spanking my child in anger, accidentally hitting too hard, or unknowingly harming the innocent party if I misinterpret a negative interaction. Instead of allowing myself the possibility of spanking, I actively work on safer, gentler approaches.

Lauding physical harm as an ethical method of discipline is an anachronism in today’s world. We decry excessive police violence. We are appalled at anyone in a position of authority using their position to physically correct a subordinate. We expect children not to hit their siblings and friends. We don’t beat even convicted criminals.

Yet it’s tolerated and encouraged for parents to hit, thrash, beat, whoop, smack, pinch, whack, swat, or slap their children, their babies, the smallest, most defenseless, most powerless people.

Even if the line between spanking and abuse weren’t so thin, even if the danger of physically or emotionally bruising children weren’t so present, I still wouldn’t spank my children.

There’s another way.

It irks me, actually, when parents say things like, “Spanking is the only way to get them to listen.”

As a teacher, I can’t tap into the instantaneous submission that spanking brings. I must work to gain respect and authority through other, gentler means. It’s tough, but it works.

And I didn’t work with angels all the time. I worked with difficult children. You bet I sometimes stood shaking in frustration, thanking God through gritted teeth that spanking wasn’t allowed or else that kid would be hurting right now. I am not an angel myself.

But if teachers can keep a large class of students in some semblance of order without spanking, parents can handle their handful of children too without resorting to physical harm.

If spanking really were the only way to get to the hardest, most defiant kid to listen, I can understand the parenting philosophy of using spanking as a last resort punishment. But I know from experience that spanking is not the only way, and that it is the very opposite of more effective ways of disciplining.

And if there’s another way, why wouldn’t I choose an option that didn’t involve physically harming my children — even if spanking didn’t cause trauma?

A Definition of Egalitarian Parenting

In interpreting Ephesians 5:21-6:9, egalitarians argue that the gospel erases hierarchical lines between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female. All are equal before Christ. All mutually submit to one another. And this makes sense — what qualitative difference do Jews have over Gentiles to make them spiritually superior? What do men have over women, or one adult over another?

But in the middle of all these adult equals, Paul addresses the parent/child relationship: “Children, obey your parents. Fathers, do not exasperate your children.”

Does the gospel change the nature of the parent/child relationship? Does it, in fact, elevate children to the level of equals, tearing down the authoritative hierarchy between parent and child?

I’ve thought about this. It makes no sense that the gospel would leave the parent/child relationship unaffected and untransformed, but children as equals to their parents? The parent/child relationship is the only relationship out of the three that Paul addresses here where there is a qualitative difference between the two parties.

Adults possess more wisdom and experience, and are explicitly charged with guiding their children. Children eat Tide pods, leave their chores undone, and get caught up in peer pressure. Due to their immaturity, children cannot stand alone as equals in the way a slave or a wife can. How could the gospel break down the hierarchy of parent over child in a way that still allows a parent to fully guide, care, and take responsibility for their children?

After thinking about this, I would argue that egalitarian parenting ought to treat the parent/child relationship how complementarians explain their marriages: equals with different roles, with the parents laying down their lives in service to their children and children receiving the instruction and guidance of their parents, all under the higher guidance of God.

Let me provide a contrasting example first.

A Non-Egalitarian Approach: Authoritarian Parenting

In many so-called “Biblical” parenting paradigms, the point of parenting is maintaining a strict hierarchy — even without using those exact words. Parents are unquestioningly at the top, dispensing their views and desires. Children are unquestioningly at the bottom, obeying their parents’ every word as law and meeting their parents’ every desire.

In this paradigm, the key virtues of childhood are instant, cheerful, unquestioning obedience, and respect and honor toward parents. “Because I said so” is a valid and often-repeated justification for whatever the parent requests. There is no recourse for the child beyond that — no appeal to reason, emotion, or another authority. Parents are further encouraged to make their word law and be consistent, even if their initial demand was unreasonable. After all, the point is maintaining an appearance of control at all costs.

Parents train children to come on command. Defiance or disrespect are the worst of all offenses, punishable by painful and humiliating strikes across the buttocks or other shaming tactics. Parents are encouraged to hit the defiant child until her will breaks. “Talking back,” whining, even trying to explain one’s point of view — any emotion or communication that doesn’t show cheerful compliance — is not allowed, and also qualifies a child for any sort of painful, embarrassing, or harsh punishment the parent deems necessary.

According to this parenting model, children owe parents respect and honor simply because their parents are their parents. No matter how unreasonable, unkind, or even unlawful their parents’ actions may be, children are required to respond with superhuman respect. Natural feelings of frustration, injustice, fear, or hurt are interpreted as disrespect and a threat to the parents’ authority. Maintaining the hierarchical system is what’s important here — the system of parental authority and a child’s compliance is what produces happy, well-regulated, respectful adults, regardless of the way that system is implemented or maintained.

Since the desired outcome of this parenting style is the maintenance and adherence to a strict hierarchical system, parents view their children’s actions as a direct commentary on their parenting. Since controlling another human being is impossible without utterly breaking her spirit, this inspires a constant, fearful insecurity in one’s parenting that shames parents. It also justifies even stronger reactions to their child’s misbehavior, since parents are told that their child’s behavior is something well within a parents’ control.

If their children are for the most part obedient and respectful, they feel that they have succeeded in parenting and take the credit for raising well-behaved kids. If their children struggle with emotional outbursts, defiance, or rebellion (whether real or perceived), parents feel like failures. With their own reputation at stake, parents often find amusement and vindication in seeing their child as embarrassed, disrespected, or hurt as they feel.

Even if parents feel inclined to give themselves or their kids a more generous pass, critics will blame and shame parents when their children throw tantrums in the grocery store or can’t sit still in church. And parents dare not justify these breaches of obedience with reasons like, “She was tired and hungry.” It’s expected that parents keep their children reined in and respectful at all times, no exceptions, no excuses.

It’s no wonder that many children under these hierarchical rules experience abuse of all kinds and sometimes even death. And many parents feel frustrated, defeated, and inadequate due to the impossible demands of breaking the spirit of individual little humans who have their own reasons, opinions, and feelings.

I would argue that this hierarchical structure of parenting is the most predominant understanding of the parent/child relationship today. It might take the more extreme forms of come-when-I-whistle servitude, but it most often appears as “common sense” parenting that interprets most misbehavior as disrespect, which only a strong parental hand (that is, shame, punishment, and spanking) can break.

If you take a look at some of these images, you’ll see what I mean:

This isn’t to say that respect isn’t a virtue or that children shouldn’t listen to their parents. But just as complementarians zero in on “wives, submit to your husbands” and interpret “husbands, love your wives” as authority over their wives, this hierarchical view of parenting is all “children, obey your parents” and no “fathers, do not exasperate your children.”

If we look at child development, we’ll see that many of the underlying assumptions about and responses to children and their (mis)behavior often exasperate children. I’ve used my research into child development and the theology of relationships to craft a new, egalitarian paradigm of parenting.

Toward an Egalitarian Understanding of Parenting

In egalitarian parenting, children are fundamentally human and thus entitled to the same respect, understanding, and influence adults accord to other adults. This is the key difference between authoritarian parenting and respectful parenting: while respectful parents do guide with authority, they do so not to maintain a hierarchy but to help children regulate their emotions and actions in accordance with their own beliefs and interests.

Instead of demanding unquestioning obedience, egalitarian parents foster self-regulation. This is the ultimate virtue of egalitarian parenting: self-regulation. This allows space for children’s questions, explanations, and differing opinions. This allows for parents to be wrong and children to be right about their own experiences and emotions. In short, the pursuit of self-regulation allows children to be independent of their parents rather than reflections or servants of their parents.

Since children intrinsically deserve the same sort of respect that adults do, egalitarian parenting requires the parent to follow every command in Scripture about interacting with other humans: doing unto others as we would have them do to us, responding to anger with gentle words, outdoing one another in showing honor, living with understanding, being patient with the weaker ones among us, responding with blessing when we are wronged instead of revenge.

Egalitarian parenting decriminalizes children’s — and parents’! — misbehavior. The parent/child relationship is a relationship dependent on mutual respect, not on an authoritative system to obey. This means that if a child loses her temper and shouts, “I hate you!” at her mother, the damage is relational and requires a relational — not a punitive — response.

What do we do when an adult loses her cool and says something you know she doesn’t mean? We maintain our cool. We deescalate the situation. We calmly and firmly express our hurt and/or walk away from the situation if we’re getting upset ourselves. We model the kind of behavior we want the other person to emulate, and eventually, ashamed, the other person calms down, apologizes, and the conversation often gets at the heart of what’s really going on. 

And if we do respond back in anger and shout something equally rude? Well, in egalitarian parenting, we’re not trying to maintain an impossible facade of rigid authority. Our authority is maintained by mutual, organic respect, not imposed obedience, which means we can apologize or change our minds if we said something unkind or issued a consequence that isn’t fair, and not worry that our children will lose respect for us.

This relieves a huge burden from the parents’ shoulders: they are not responsible for controlling their children, an impossible task. They are merely responsible for controlling their own behavior and maintaining their own end of the relationship — a powerful, magnetic force that draws wayward children into better ways of behaving. 

Egalitarian parenting isn’t passive parenting, however. In a relationship of equals, personal boundaries are key. Parents are allowed to be human and to set their own boundaries when they’re tired, annoyed, hurt, or inconvenienced. If a toddler continues to hit his mother, the mother is fully within her right to set the toddler down and walk away until he can use gentler hands. If a teenager refuses to be responsible with her tasks, her father is fully within his right to not save her from the consequences — unwashed clothes, a messy room, missed deadlines. But the consequences are natural, not punitive, and not meant to reestablish a parent’s hierarchical authority over their child or shame their child into compliance. 

Again, this is the key difference between authoritarian parenting and egalitarian parenting: any consequence or parental response is meant to aid the child in regulating herself and restoring their relationship, not reminding the child who’s boss and wrestling them into begrudging compliance. In egalitarian parenting, parents are not maintaining a hierarchical system. They are maintaining a mutually respectful relationship where parents seek to serve and build up the child into mature independence. 

In another post, I will break down some typical examples of authoritarian parenting and suggest more egalitarian, respectful ways to firmly and compassionately handle children’s undesirable behavior.

Is Feminism to Blame for Men’s Bad Behavior?

tim-foster-665923-unsplash

This culture’s feminism is actually empowering men to be the worst versions of themselves. They get the sex without the commitment. They get the pregnancy without the baby. They get the date without picking up the check. They get the relationship without being a gentlemen.

No opening doors, no pulling out chairs, no providing, no protecting, and no male responsibility. Because hey… everything is equal. In other words, modern feminism is the perfect recipe for men to side-step God’s call for how to treat a woman. But a Godly man knows better. A Godly man knows he’s equal in value but different in role.

He knows that he can be a protector, a provider, and a lover without being “toxic” or “dangerous.” Men, it’s easy to support a movement that allows us to get lazy—it’s why so many men have already jumped on board. But don’t do what most men do. Do what Godly men do. Cherish women. Value women. Listen to women. But don’t ever escape your role in the process. // Dale Partridge

source

I see variations of this anti-feminist sentiment all the time. Feminism is to blame for men’s bad behavior. Equality erodes male responsibility.

To the first claim, that feminism is at fault for men’s bad behavior: I actually agree that certain aspects of today’s liberal feminism encourage and sanctify men’s bad behavior.

For many liberal women, the litmus test for what’s feminist and empowering is anything a woman freely chooses to do. This may include porn, sex work, and other ways of sexually objectifying oneself. Sometimes this trivializes feminism: I wear high heels as a feminist statement that women can be whatever they want to be, including traditionally feminine! Sometimes this undermines feminism altogether: I’m going to objectify myself in the name of empowerment!

Feminism should not be just about celebrating each woman’s individual choice to do whatever she wants to do. It’s great that women have freedom and options. But at its core, feminism is about identifying and breaking down patriarchal values that even we as feminist women have internalized.

When we try to sanctify patriarchal values with feminism (like freely treating oneself as a sexual object or pursuing sex without commitment), we do give license to men to continue disempowering women, now with our consent and blessing. We do put ourselves in positions where men can easily harm, objectify, or disrespect us and other women, particularly women at risk of trafficking and abuse.

(I’m making a very important but tricky distinction here between a woman encouraging a man to view her as a sexual object and inviting unwanted sexual advances. I would argue that sex workers, for instance, encourage men to treat them and other women as sex objects, not only in the context of their work but elsewhere. Nonetheless, just because a woman gives consent to be objectified in a certain way doesn’t mean she gives consent to or desires other kinds of sexual attention or the same kind of sexual attention in a different context. A woman’s clothing, occupation, or behavior, however intentionally or unintentionally sexual, are not excuses for men to harass or assault her.)

There’s nothing feminist about women’s choices that harm and disrespect themselves and other women.

If we’re simply talking about that kind of free-for-all feminism, I completely agree that today’s feminism is bringing out the worst in men.

But if we’re talking about feminism at its most simplest definition — equality for women in all areas of life — this anti-feminist critique makes no sense. Equality cannot erode male responsibility.

Many anti-feminists erroneously think that feminism isn’t really about equality; it’s about ridding the world of men, doing everything without them, and replacing everything male with everything female.

While I’m sure you can find “feminist” sentiment of that nature, just as you can find anything online nowadays, that is not what equality means. Equality doesn’t mean men must stop being providers, protectors, and responsible human beings. It means that it’s not just men who can or must be providers, protectors, and responsible human beings as the situation arises. And it also means that men should be free to be nurturers and nurtured themselves.

Anti-feminists think of the world in terms of strictly gendered roles. There are limited Protector Roles, Provider Roles, and Responsible Human Beings Roles, and those roles encompass the whole purpose of a man’s life at all times, in every situation. It is impossible for a man to take on a Protected or Provided For role in any situation without ceasing to be a man.

According to this narrative, anti-feminists interpret women’s desire to be equal as women desiring to take those limited, all-encompassing, non-nuanced roles. Each time a woman takes a Provider, Protector, or Responsible Human Being role, she must bump a man into a Provided For or a Protected role, thus stripping him of all manly traits and responsibilities.

That’s not how the world works.

There are no all-encompassing roles in life, where one is only in every situation that particular role. The Bible and everyday life are full of godly men submitting to and seeking protection and provision from godly women, and vice versa.

In the same token, there is not a limited number of exclusive Responsible Human Being roles. There need not be a Door Holding Role limited to only one gender: “Oh, dear, that woman is holding the door open for me; therefore, I can never hold open a door for anybody else ever again.” Men can continue to hold open doors for women, and women can now hold open doors for men. Men are still free, able, and encouraged to be respectful and responsible in all areas of life now that women are free, recognized as, and encouraged to be respectful and responsible in all areas of life.

In getting rid of a one unilateral way men must treat women, feminism puts the onus of treating others respectfully onto the part of us that’s human. Men can hold doors, pay for the date, fight off the bad guy, and whatever else the Male Role requires because it’s the right thing to do as a human. It is a beautiful, good, human thing to do others a good turn, to show deference, to be generous, and to protect those weaker than oneself. It’s not about fulfilling a predetermine Male Role. It’s about being a moral human being.

When feminists want to hold open doors, pay for dates, and fight off the bad guy, they are not saying, “I want to be a man. I want to get rid of any opportunity for a man to do these things.” They are saying, “I want to be fully human too. I want to do others a good turn, show deference, be generous, and protect those weaker than oneself any time the situation arises, because these are human traits, human responsibilities.”

What happens when we shatter these restrictive, predetermined, exclusive roles? Now we have two people willing to fight off the bad guys. Now we have two people committed to putting others first. Now we have two people making sure the bills get paid. Now we have two people “outdoing one another in showing honor” (Romans 12:10) — all expectations required of both sexes in the Christian tradition.

Equality doesn’t destroy men’s moral responsibility. Equality strengthens it.

It is not good that man should be alone. I shall make an ezer kenegdoa savior, a rescuer, a strong helper suitable for him.