Relationships, roles and responses.

Almost without realising, as I've grown up, I've developed ideas and values that help to form the core of my identity. I define myself as a woman, a feminist, a graduate, and these things inform my attitudes and beliefs about almost every moral and social issue I encounter.

One of the great things about having friends who come from entirely different ideological roots is that sometimes you are introduced to a way of thinking about something that is entirely alien to your own. I think it's all to easy to dismiss things that don't fit with your particular world view, but somehow when such things come from people you like and respect you are forced to engage with them regardless.

Over dinner with Christian friends recently, in the course of a discussion on relationships in a more general way, the notion of male headship came up. This, as I understand it, is the idea that within a Christian marriage the man should take on the more protective, assertive, decision making role, while the woman acts in a supportive, nurturing capacity. It is a Christian ideal, and perhaps examining it out of that framework is a little unfair, but since Christianity believes the whole world would be happier turning to its faith this must have implications for the rest of us too.

My instinctive reaction to this, if I'm honest, is dismissive incredulity. After all, versions of these arguments have been used to keep women out of government, in the home, subservient, docile, and submissive. Surely we have moved past the 'different but equal' arguments that have been used in the past to stop individuals making their own choices based on their own unique talents and interests, rather than ill fitting stereotypes of what behaviour is 'natural' to men and women. These kinds of models for relationships are at best outdated, and at worse dangerous; allowing the unscrupulous to justify domestic violence and the denial of female emancipation.

This is what I think, and it is still what I think at the most fundamental level, but there is another, more uncomfortable side to things. For starters, old-fashioned and untenable as such ways of thinking may appear, the friends who raised the issue appear to have an extremely happy, secure and successful relationship, so something in this idea clearly works for them. Of course, it is entirely possible to see that a relationship model where one partner protects and provides, and the other supports and nurtures might work well, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why such roles should be ascribed on the basis of biological sex.

Except that... there is still something in me, and for that matter a majority of my female friends that does on some level desire a man to step into that protective role. I do want, if I'm honest, a mate who can step up, make decisions, take control when necessary, in short a partner I can respect. I have only recently started thinking about how I can square this with my feminist beliefs. And just to complicate matters further, equally I still loathe the idea of letting go of my reasoning and emotions to allow any man to make the final decision, no matter how worthy and dependable he may be.

Perhaps this unwitting attraction to the idea of a man who can fulfil the traditional role is simply evidence that culturally men and women are still conditioned to want and be different things, in spite of themselves. This would explain my simultaneous fascination with and horror at the idea. There is little doubt that this kind of conditioning can be harmful to both men and women and has massive self esteem implications, particularly for those who don't feel able to live up to the stereotypes held up as the ideal. Just as I know that I would quickly tire of the assumption that however valid my opinions they would need to be 'signed off' by another, equally a partner could become weary of the pressure of being responsible for all of the most important decisions.

And then there is the fact that all of this is incredibly hetero-normative. Either we accept that either sex can take either role in this relationship model, or we totally exclude same sex couples where one or both would inevitably end up in the 'wrong' role. This may be less of a problem for schools of Christian thought that judge homosexual pairings to be outside of the ideal anyway, but for more progressive expressions of Christianity such a rigid approach to gender roles does gay Christians a massive disservice.

Ultimately, the idea of headship remains extremely problematic idea for me as a feminist. After all, surely the ideal scenario is one of mutual respect between and for all partners within a relationship, regardless of sex and gender, where all voices are equally heard and equally valid. (Of course, some models of male headship would not technically speaking exclude this). But regardless I don't think that feminism can automatically dismiss Christianity as purely patriarchal and irrelevant, any more than I believe that Christianity should demonise or ignore feminism. Almost every political, religious or philosophical way of seeing the world has something to recommend it, and it is harder, but more rewarding to engage with these than to dismiss them out of hand. And that is a big part of what this blog is about.