What’s old is new again: Brian Reinholz and his wife find complementarianism in marriage works for them.
Does your marriage feel like a constant power struggle? Have you ever thought about the ‘old way’ of doing things and wondered if there’s something to it?
Let me start with a disclaimer: I understand that some of the things I say might seem offensive, or misogynist. I only ask for a fair shake and an open mind, and I promise to reciprocate.
My wife and I are coming up on our 5-year anniversary. As I reflect on these past 5 years of marriage, it’s pretty interesting to see the twists and turns we’ve taken. We’re completely different people than we were, and I’m glad. Here’s our story.
♦◊♦
Shy nerdy boy (that’s me!) meets edgy, rebellious girl. Shy nerdy boy thinks he can “save” edgy girl with his love, compassion, and wisdom. (An almost laughable statement, looking back at 16-year-old me.) He ends up learning a whole lot more from the relationship, like how to come out of his shell, live a little, and oh yeah, actually carry on a normal conversation with someone else.
They get married at 18 and 19 with every confidence that true love will overcome all obstacles. (Does this story sound familiar yet?)
♦◊♦
It started out good but went sour fast. It was everyday combat … anything from who’s going to drive today to who’s going to cook, do the dishes, take care of the dogs, etc. Granted, we both hated our jobs and were always exhausted. But looking back, one major flaw in our relationships was we were always self-focused, not focused on each other. And I think the reason is that both of us were desperately trying to play roles that we weren’t meant to.
My reaction to these power struggles was to just start giving in. I carried the calmer demeanor of the two of us, and I’m also a chronic conflict-avoider. So I’d just bow out, again and again and again. But, as some articles here have mentioned, most women don’t really want a passive man for a husband. My wife didn’t either. So, goodbye emotional intimacy.
It was a pretty dark chapter in our marriage—there was a period where, after only a year or so into marriage, my mantra of “I’ll never get divorced” started to transition into “maybe this was a bad idea.” And once you let your mind down that rabbit hole, it ends up in some pretty dark places.
♦◊♦
It was around this time that we decided to find a church. (I know, I know, here comes the sappy, God-saved-my-marriage story.) We actually didn’t really see just how screwed up our marriage was yet—we just wanted to meet some friends, and church seemed like the place to do that.
This church was probably one of the best things that has ever happened to us. Within months, we both started changing. We both had a sense of purpose that went beyond paying the bills and making our way through our Netflix queue.
At some point in the last few years, we got introduced to the concept of complementarianism—an alternative to egalitarianism that teaches on ‘different but equal’ gender roles for men and women, especially in a marital context. I was pretty hesitant as this sounded a lot like those “crazy evangelicals” who want to bring us back in time to the Cleavers.
But around the same time, we started talking about wanting to start a family, and both of us felt very strongly that if we were going to have kids, we wanted to make them the focus of our life. We wanted to pour our best into them. I had experienced the huge blessing of having a parent around 24/7—my wife had not because her father died when she was young and her mom had to work and raise the kids.
So, we wanted a devoted parent, but at the time I didn’t know what that would look like. I thought maybe I would get a work-from-home job and stay with the kids? But around that same time, my wife became fairly adamant: “I’d like to quit my job and stay home with the kids,” she told me.
There’s been more changes than just that though … I’ve begun to take a lead role in financial management, overall family vision, making major decisions, etc. From my perspective, the new role and responsibility has driven me to step up a lot more, to fight hard for our family and feel good about it. (Like the whole ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ thing.)
From my wife’s perspective (these are her words), she feels like our changing roles have cut down on arguments, helped her to feel more clear about responsibilities and expectations, and she has gained peace from not feeling the need to control everything. I have also seen her relationships with other women improve a lot, and I’ve seen her grow in all types of handy skills (she’s made her own yogurt, mayonnaise, and ranch dressing in the past week). She also reports being a lot happier. 
♦◊♦
So here’s where I’m probably going to heat a few kettles. I believe that men and women are different, and that it’s dangerous to ignore these differences when it comes to marriage.
One thing I’ve observed in a lot of men is that they either skew toward passivity or skew toward domination. The passive men (who I think are the majority) need responsibility—I know I did. The domineering men need accountability. (One way to accomplish this is regularly meeting with, and baring your soul with, a few other men that aren’t afraid to tell you if you’re way off base. I strongly recommend this for both men and women.)
As for women, well, my perspective is probably weak at best here … but from what I’ve seen most women want freedom to make their own decisions and live their own life but they also want a husband who has a plan, has a vision, and has the courage and discipline to execute that family vision.
When a wife takes control, either by choice or out of necessity—I see this all the time where the wife brings home the bacon, raises the kids, and takes care of the house—she’ll most likely resent her husband for being lazy. But lo and behold, the husband quickly feels disrespected and not needed, so he checks out.
Maybe these stereotypes seem really sexist and really unfair … you’re probably right. But have you not seen this play out before? Maybe it’s just my circle, but I see this happen. All. The. Time.
Every marriage is different. Every balancing act is going to look different … the roles are going to look different. Same with same-sex relationships. I’m not saying it’s my way or the highway—but I do know that this family relationship has taken a lot of stress and tension off of both of us. I think a knee-jerk reaction that calls a male-led model “oppressive” probably does more to hinder rather than help couples that might benefit from it.
Are power struggles getting in the way of intimacy in your marriage? Or am I totally off my rocker? Happy to hear either opinion but let’s keep it respectful. We’re all just sorting through this maze together.
—Photo Sean MacEntee/Flickr
About Brian Reinholz
I am happy for Brian, but reluctant to take much away from this experience of one young marriage.
Marriage is, as David Schnarch (sp?) has written, a cruciable for personal growth. At the very least, such well-defined roles may help a couple to avoid becoming too undifferentiated as individuals. In a good marriage, the whole is greater than the sum of the partners.
That said, my own experience of following cultural scripts in relationships is that it can blind you to the real ebb and flow of things. People grow and xhange. What works for a couple in their 20s may well prove unworkable in their 40′s.
You need to listen and grow the relationship if it becomes ill-fitting.
I lurk and read here a lot. As a female and typical breadwinner in relationships I can honestly say I completely get resentful when I come home to someone I perceive as not working as hard as I am (be it at home or professionally). And heaven forbid if I can walk all over the guy to boot. I emotionally check out of the relationship and move on to one that is more satisfying and stimulating for me. That doesn’t mean I move towards “domineering” but that I find someone with more motivation and passion in life.
I think the continuum between passive and domineering is mostly ignored in this article. I don’t know how you guys see it (which is why I come here to get some enlightenment on men and their lives). From my female perspective men don’t often fall just at passive or just at domineering and those at those extremes tend to not function well in relationships anyhow. I find people tend to drift around the middle areas having both passive and domineering traits.
Interesting point about that continuum – and I agree with you, it’s not black or white.
We can say that, when one partner is domineering, the other has to be passive (or viceversa), otherwise the relationship will not work – and that’s a functional dualism.
Women has been taught to be passive for millennia; but that has changed in recent years (in the West, at least).
Personally, I have a strong ego so I know I tend to be dominant. At the same time, I strive for an equality-based relationship, so I prefer strong partners with whom we can find a “middle ground”.
Plus also, I’d argue that the dynamic is more about a whole bunch of continuums. Like, I can be much more dominant about some aspects of a relationship, and then a lot more passive about others. I too strive for a more equality-based relationship…but regardless I know that sometimes I’ll prefer to be more ‘in charge’ whereas sometimes I actually prefer not to.
Let’s talk “pre-kids” shall we? Why is it that when a couple get’s married that 1) the wife chooses to stay home and take care of her hiusband and home, she’s looked at as making a choice and that’s a good thing. 2) the man decides to stay home and take care of the home and wife and doesnt work, he’s a lazy bum? And don’t tell me that attitude is unique.
I see that double-standard attitude everywhere, and it’s one of my major pet-peeves.
I see it in lots of women (e.g. equality when it’s good for them, chivalry when they like it) but, honestly, in many men as well.
Truth is, as much as people talks about equality, many are still entrenched in gender roles, and they believe “it’s the way to be” without questioning them.
We must also consider some roles have an innate, biological origin – not cultural (e.g. the man cannot give birth while the woman goes hunting).
Well, hopefully she could just swing by the grocer’s
I am very guilty of liking and even expecting chivalry. Have you even lugged something heavy around and been just at your breaking point when someone offers to help? The relief! Yes, it is always men who offer, in my case at least. But then it has never stopped me from offering. Ever since I was a child I could not see an old person struggling without atleast considering whether it would be appropriate to help. Probably because I had close contact with elderly people early… So I’m thinking it’s maybe just a case of previous experiences. If women are taught or watch other expect men and only men to swoop down and help, maybe they get too stuck in old habits?
I’m trying to think of an example where men do it too.
It is something of a pervasive attitude…but I’d argue it’s changing. I’ll pull an example from one of my television guilty pleasures – Brothers & Sisters. One of the guys in the show is a stay-at-home Dad and it’s considered totally fine. (The couple ends up divorcing anyway, for other reasons). When they discuss why he’s at-home Dad and she’s the working Mom, it turns out it was all about the cash. Her job made more, so that’s how it worked out. After the divorce they have this big fight for custody of the kids…which he initially wins because he was the primary caregiver. Interestingly, it was perhaps a very stereotypical custody battle, except that she was the one left saying “I might work, but I’m their parent too. I’m working for them!” and then getting told it’s not good enough.
Now how realistic that situation is, is another discussion….my point is that the attitudes are changing with regards to stay-at-home Dads…even if it’s just on t.v. at the moment.
One thing that I think this article misses is the way in which it views different roles. Although something like bill paying is a traditionally “masculine” role, there’s really nothing inherently (or biblically) about it that makes a person with a penis better at bill paying or happier when paying bills. That’s just what works for the authors family. And if that works, great.
Egalitarian doesn’t mean that a woman can’t do feminine tasks nor does it mean that a man can’t do masculine tasks. It just means that they don’t have to and can work out how these tasks will work in their own marriage.
Complementarianism suggests that the flaws of a woman are met well by the flaws of a man, and I reject that. The fact that more women suffer from eating disorders doesn’t mean that they need a confident husband and the fact that more men suffer from alcoholism doesn’t mean they need a sober wife who can clean up after their husband’s vomit. Also, complementarianism has no room for same-sex marriage. It’s a nice, fanciful idea that sounds good on paper, but despite what John Piper and Mark Driscoll say in their conservative American Protestant views of the Bible, complementarianism isn’t all that Biblical and isn’t all that applicable to reality.
Egalitarianism doesn’t mean people don’t fill different roles. It just means they don’t fill the roles because of the genitalia they were born with.
There are greater consequences centered on the lack of Male productivity then there are when women slack off in a marriage. This is made painfully obvious by the higher divorce rates filed by women.
Men need to submit to a duty that is clear prosperous and noble. We need to know where we belong in a relationship. I can’t see how an undefined notion of egalitarianism could compete with a partnership based on axiomatic Masculine pride and yes Feminen virtue.
In other words we want to de heroes.
I think you’re totally right re: both partners needing certain clearly defined roles in a relationship. I know that I appreciate when things are clearly spelled out with the people that I live with in terms of who is responsible for which bills, chores, etc. as well as what the general ethic of the house should be.
There are, however, two problems with holing up complimentarianism as absolutely right for every couple. First of all, different partners may legitimately have different strengths, and relationship roles should serve to play to each partner’s strengths. For example, if I am better at managing money, that I should be in charge of finances (even if that is a stereotypically masculine role). If my husband is better at cooking, he should be in charge of the cooking. That way, each partner feels like they are playing to their strengths and contributing something meaningful. If you break it down along traditional gender roles, that could lead to partners taking the lead in something they are ill-suited for.
Second, complimentarianism as I have read about it doesn’t leave room for emotional work in relationships. I think the biggest problem in relationships in terms of one person feeling unappreciated/unheard/overworked is a lack of emotional support and open communication between partners. So often, it is just assumed by default that the woman in the relationship will do all the emotional work of soothing her husband’s nerves after a bad day/ initiating relationship conversations/ listening to him when he is sad, which leaves her feeling used and him feeling impotent. It is important in a healthy relationship that both partners nurture and care for each other.
This is a very respectfully written article and it seems as though the author has really tried to be openminded. But what would have happened if the two of you weren’t a) so young and had had more time to develop discipline and sense of responsibility independently of each other? Would that have made a difference?
And imagine if you lived in a society where a woman didn’t have to resent a husband if she had to work herself. I mean I, as a woman, would love a man, that is my man, to help me with what I cannot. SImply because that is the nature of a partnership. But I have trained for a profession. It makes a big difference in my thinking about equality. I have more to base my decisions on than society’s preconceived notions on who should stay at home. I’m not saying that is the case for you. But what if, and humour me here, if you had lived in a matriarchal society (those do exist right here on earth) where women take responsibility for the family, and have done so for generations. How would you imagine yourself in that society? Would you face the same problems dealing with being “passive” when that was all that was essentially expected of you? Don’t get me wrong, I’m just as much a product of a society that favours the image of men as macho, maybe I wouldn’t, as a woman, want a passive man. But is it because I was raised with passive women and strong men around me and as a social creature find the norm beautiful.
I for one find it very hard to separate the so called “biological differences” that some talk of and the social cultural constraints. Because when I really just let my mind roam free and imagine that I had lived in a matriarchal society – I would be much the same as I am today, strong-willed, opinionated, loudmouthed some would say brash, but I would not have had the negative feedback for my behaviour in say pre-school that I did have when I acted as my male peers.
The fact is that if you remove many of the social markers for what children “should” do, children are so incredibly free to move. We have tried it for race and not yet succeded. But I don’t think we’ve even started trying when it comes to gender.
“We have tried it for race and not yet succeded. But I don’t think we’ve even started trying when it comes to gender.”
The is little difference between the races but a massive difference between the genders. Anthropology, genetics, biology all confirm the same thing. Women and men are different. Blacks and whites no so much.
“But is it because I was raised with passive women and strong men around me and as a social creature find the norm beautiful.”
And what’s wrong with that? If all moralities and norms are arbitrary then why can’t we choose the patriarchal norm? You already find the norm beautiful so lets go with it. Every single norm will restrict in some way. If its not restricting you for being loud and brash then its restricting someone else for some other reason.
“The fact is that if you remove many of the social markers for what children “should” do, children are so incredibly free to move”
You can’t do that. Children need social markers. If you remove all of them children will develop their own societies and they will be just as arbitrary as any other. Ultimately you have to make choices and choices restrict. There is no absolutely free. And our society is highly restrictive if you compare it to many others. Its all about trade offs in the end.
Sorry, assman (what a great screen name). I have absolutely NO interest in going with a patriarchal norm. You and your husband/boyfriend can pursue that together.
How are women and men different? What is one thing that all women want that all men do not, or vice versa? I ask because I have lots of both male and female friends, and I have observed LOTS of overlap in their needs, desires, and behavior.
I think to a degree it comes down to the personalities of the people involved and expectations and that it’s not as simple as gender roles. I trained for a profession and enjoy my job. I dot want to stay home but I also don’t want kids. For me the idea of supporting a stay at home man (because in my reality there are no fathering duties) is what would quickly make me resentful. I’ve done it before and don’t like to be a sole breadwinner as I’m sure some men don’t like. I prefer my partners male or female to be capable of supporting themselves. I don’t like the stress of solely shouldering that burden.
I’m sure some women and some men are fine with being the sole supporter of the family. And they need to find like minded partners. Passive people need to find partners ok with that etc.
I think there is benefit to developing clearly agreed-upon roles that fit the two individuals and fit the couple, instead of both people trying to do everything fully equally all the time. There’s something to the idea of having some clear division of labor for lack of a better phrase. In THIS case, it just happens to be split along what’s considered traditional gender lines, but there’s no reason that two people couldn’t divide up roles a thousand different ways. It just sounds like good general advice that does not necessarily recommend traditional gender roles. Within same-sex parent couples, probably in most cases it works out best if one works inside/outside the home a little more than the other or does more of the childcare than the other.
The article seems to be equating “equality” with “sameness” or suggesting that you can’t be complementary and be egalitarian. It’s in reaction to this that you may encounter some animosity out there. I don’t think you mean to say this, but it sounds like you’re saying that taking on specific gender roles works out well because you stop trying to be equal to each other, and that sounds like a “back in the kitchen, you!” argument that you’re probably not making. To some people it may sound like you’re saying “complementary” roles include one person who’s a leader and another who’s the follower. “Complementary roles” has been used to justify all sorts of horrible things. (See Japan in World War II and the “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.” We order, you obey! Everybody wins!)
Again, I don’t think you’re saying this, but others may read that into it.
Saying that men and women are very different does not mean that they can’t be equal. Contrary to many of the stereotypes about feminism, very few people who’ve fought for gender equality are suggesting that men and women are exactly the same. Can you and your wife be equal to each other and have complementary roles?
Where the OP and I part company is on the idea of a marriage that includes a leader and a follower roleam. That is neither egalitarian, nor complementary it is classically patriarchal and aligned with the evangelical spiritual patriarchy taught by most faiths. Where there is a leader and a follower there is a power differential. Add to this his control of family finances and “responsibility” for major family decisions and you have a reltaionship that is not something I can endorse. A marriage of equals standing on their own two feet together is a much better model to my way of thinking.
“A marriage of equals standing on their own two feet together is a much better model to my way of thinking.”
The egalitarian model has failed. The divorce rate is solid evidence that egalitarian marriages don’t work. Leader and follower on the other hand is a universal model for marriage found in every society and it is highly successful.
Which is why evangelicals (and southerners more generally) have the highest divorce rate among all of the religious groups in our country – because they’ve so thoroughly embraced the egalitarian model of matrimony.
Dude. the divorce rate has been headed slowly but steadily downward since 1980
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html
The reason the divorce rate was so low before the advent of no-fault divorce, was stigma and economic dependence, not pure blissful marital arrangements. When you cannot apply for a line of credit by yourself, you will stay in that shitty relationship so that you can eat.
I love the concept of “different but equal”. It is the differences between the sexes that make us complete. It is the relative strength in the opposite sex that makes a couple unbeatable. It is the weakness of one that is balanced out by the other that makes a strong team.
The opportunity lies in the recognition and appreciation in the differences between the sexes not the desire to make relationships sexless.
How do same-sex relationships fit into this?
He has the right idea,. Any couple should compliment each other’s strengths and weaknesses well, or be flexible enough to work through them.
But it has nothing to do with the strengths and weaknesses of a gender. What does that even mean? Is there some universal trait in all men that’s weaker than it is in all women, and vice versa? I find that hard to believe.
Assman, I’d the divorce rate says anything about marriage styles, it is probably that in a world where women are free from economic dependency on men, they will not stay in marriages in which they more than pull their weight while being made to feel like an inferior.
Just as you can assert some unearned privilege of leadership, your partner can reject the role of follower.
Howabout instead of asserting positions, we look at the research:
http://godswordtowomen.org/Preato3.htm
Egalitarian marriages are 4 times more likely to be happy than traditional in-egalitarian ones.
I’ll admit, the bit right after ‘So here’s where I’m probably going to heat a few kettles’ really heated my kettle. Right up until then I was thinking ‘good for them, they found what they both wanted, and despite it not being exactly what they both signed up for, it worked for both of them’. But then you had to extrapolate from there to the rest of humanity, which is what bothered me.
Reading the rest of the article did calm me down a little. But I have to say, you should try phrasing this more like ‘this is something that worked for us and I think you should consider it rather than dismissing it as necessarily oppressive and otherwise bad’ and less like ‘this is something that worked for us and therefore I believe it did so because of inherent differences between men and women’. It worked for you and your wife because you are who you are and she is who she is, not because you are a man and she is a woman.
Beware the phrase ‘I believe that men and women are different’. Because it sounds a lot like ‘men are the same and women are the same’. I am a feminist because I believe that EVERYONE is different. Even if something is true for 999 out of 1000 men and only 2 out of 1000 women, you can’t say it is true for men and not true for women without needlessly excluding those 3 exceptions in every 2000 from their gender. Humanity is vast and nothing is true for everyone.
*thumbs up* this is so good.
Do whatever is best for your relationship. If that means a more “traditional” marriage, then go with that. If that means a more “egalitarian” marriage, then be egalitarian. It all depends on the kind of people in the relationship.
I don’t care if you “see it all the time” when a woman gets frustrated by taking on a “man’s responsibilities.” There are millions of women who couldn’t care less.
I am involved in a relationship which purposely skews the power-relationship towards Her. We both find it incredibly fulfilling. I am neither passive nor irresponsible, and she is not domineering or disrespectful. Anyone who sets out those dysfunctional extremes as the either/or ends of a relationship really doesn’t know much about what they are saying.
It is possible to allow one’s partner to have primary (or ultimate) power to decide (for example) which bills get paid this month without being disengaged from the process. Neither position (paying the bills or not) is inherently male or female. It ultimately doesn’t matter WHO does that (or any other marital task) so much as SOMEONE does and BOTH people involved are happy with the arrangement.
I will agree with the author on this point: Those who want to claim that ALL relationships should be egalitarian are no less extremist than are those who claim that NONE should be. If it is MY marriage (or non-marital relationship); then shouldn’t I, along with the person who is the other half of the relationship, be able to decide together what works best for us?
I agree that two people trying to run all realms of a relationship is unhealthy, and that finding complimentary roles is often preferable. A great, valid and necessary point. However, gender prescriptivism isn’t necessary. I am in a long-term relationship with my partner (I’m female, he’s male and we don’t feel comfortable being married when our non-heterosexual friends cannot. But we’re in this for life, rings or not).
I work seventy hours a week and am ambitious and career-focused. I am in a management role in a demanding field. My partner is a bartender who works 30-40 hours a week at a job he loves. He has no ambition to do much beyond bartending for the foreseeable future. I am the sort of person who, while a good domestic life is important, I will not be happy. unless my career is challenging and fulfilling. He is the sort of person who, while a job he likes is important, he will not be happy unless his domestic life is fulfilling. I could not be with someone as career-focused and ambitious as me, because I would never see him and we would never have any clean clothes or anything to eat. This set up works because, when I was being raised by a breadwinning father and stay-at-home mom (whose marriage worked well), I knew they took those roles because those roles fit them as individuals, not because it was expected. Also, worth noting, we were financially comfortable enough for her to opt out of working, which is a privilege many don’t have.
I am not resentful of his lack of ambition or his low earning potential. He is a brave, articulate, kind, moral, patient, funny, intelligent man. He would rather I spend my one day off on him and not on housework, so he covers most of our chores. He loves to cook and doesn’t mind cleaning. After years together, here are our expectations for each other:
He will bake our bread and make our yogurt. He will go to the grocery store and water the garden when I oversleep. He will cook enough dinner that we can both have leftovers for work tomorrow. Sometimes he spends 3 hours making curry empanadas from scratch (the dough too!), sometimes he throws together sandwiches. He will do laundry. He will clean the bathroom and the cat’s litterbox. He will earn some money, not much. He will communicate his emotions clearly and explain when his needs are not being met. He will tell me if I’m asking too much. He will move with me when my job moves, provided it’s not to New York City.
I will earn money. I will try so, so hard to leave my work at the office. I will be – loudly – grateful for my clean clothes and clean bathroom and hot meals. I will try and wake up early enough to water the garden. I will keep my own clothes and papers in order to make his cleaning easier. I will do the dishes. I will pay for the cat’s vet bills. I will support his career choices. I will not take him for granted. I will not let my job transfer me to New York City.
He does not feel castrated and I do not feel un-provided-for. We also check in with each other about whether or not our situation is working, making sure there’s no resentment. We facilitate each other living their best life. I want to work all the time and then come home and cuddle with him. He wants a low pressure job and the time to brew beer and plant a garden. When we have children, after a maternity leaves for me, he will bear more of the daily duties. He may only work part time, if at all, should finances allow. And I will thank him and love him and make sure our family has what it needs.
The author’s marriage works because their personalities allow them slip in to those roles happily, which is not because they are male or female, but because of who they are as individuals. Complementary personalities, skills and responsibilities are important. We do not need one more voice proclaiming that our gender dictate which role is best.
Good. That’s egalitarianism in practice.
It’s all about the individuals, and their own attitudes. NOT their gender.
Kudos to you both for creating such functioning and fulfilling – although less than usual – relationship.
I’m sure many commenters have said this, but here goes:
I’m glad this arrangement worked for the author’s marriage. Finding complementary roles– even if they are the “traditional” gender roles that, for many women, feel oppressive– certainly works for some marriages.
My problem is that this type of article is often used by patriarchal misogynists from the Christian right wing to bolster their position: “See? Egalitarianism fails marriages!” However, statistically (from what I have read) egalitarian marriages fare better on average than ones that enforce strict gender roles.
More importantly: with all the progress women have made, and considering the hard work it will take to hold onto those gains, the last thing we need is more fuel for the traditionalists. This is especially true considering that Christian “complementarians”– speaking here about the patriarchal misogynistic types– use terms like “complementary” as a philosophical sleight-of-hand. They’ll look at anecdotes (or studies) which show that people fare better with complementary roles or skills, but then take this as “evidence” that therefore all men are one way, and all women are another (generally: men being best at leadership, and women at housework/submission/raising children). They then try to enforce these strict roles across all people and all couples, when in fact couples express their complementary skills in widely diverse ways– including, yes, many women who are better at leadership or breadwinning.
I don’t see anything about true egalitarianism being the problem here. I see problems with self-centeredness, trying to change one spouse, passivity (which is unflattering in either spouse), marrying too young… but certainly not any sign of a Biblically-based commitment to mutual submission and love, which is the essence of Christian egalitarianism.
There are a lot of bold-faced lies about egalitarianism out there. It does NOT mean that women are never stay-at-home wives and mothers (actually, many egalitarians are!). It does not mean the woman is in charge (mutual submission, not dominating wife). It does not mean the woman doesn’t submit (again, mutual submission). It does mean mutual love, mutual regard, mutual submission, mutual freedom to bring ALL of one’s gifts into the marriage and not just the chromosomally-approved ones. It means truly learning to communicate, compromise, and collaborate; and not just people-please/dominate/manipulate. It means a truly synergistic relationship and not just elevating one person at the other’s expense.
It wasn’t egalitarianism that failed your marriage. I honestly don’t see where it was really tried. It was a combination of factors related to love and romance myths and immaturity, the same factors that mess up a host of marriages, whether they are complementarian, egalitarian, or undecided. Egalitarianism does not deserve that blame.