i would love if we could do away with gender roles (outside the physiological functions required for procreation) altogether. i am disappointed in the queen victoria quote, but people are often heavily influenced by the predominant views of their time and place. too bad her time was so misogynist. perhaps the two opinions should be of contemporaries; i'm sure dame fairfield has peers who share the queen's unfortunate sentiment.

why should men (or anyone, really?) have the "final decision?" i believe it's hypocritical to say that both have equal potential, but that one in particular should hold the reigns. no one should lead this dance, in my opinion. either lead it together, or not at all.

I feel gender roles are not only sexist, but also heterosexist/heteronormative. As a non-heterosexual woman, of course I don't like them. Gender roles and gender norms force me into a corner that does not reflect who I truly am; so, why would I approve of them? 

I don't understand gender roles. I've never been very good at being a "girl", even as a kid. I'm obstinate, opinionated, and naturally a little defiant. I'm also intelligent. My vagina shouldn't stand in between me and major decisions. Thankfully, I have a husband who knows and respects this - as @MissPixieGlitter@xanga said, no one should lead the dance. In my marriage, genitalia does not give one person more say than the other.

I don't think this post made you look sexist at all. take a chill pill on the fact that the only people who wanted to post so far were passionate on the subject?

I think it's riddiculous that women want to be such equals to men and wear the pants in the relationship (lets face it, there is no perfect equality if you want a relationship to last. someone has to be head of the household.) but yet they expect men to pay for them on dates, ask them out, and treat them like they did women of the 20's. You can't have your cake and eat it too, girls. If you want to wear the pants, don't expect to be treated like a woman.

Don't get me wrong, women are capable of alot of things. I'm not saying I want to be a doormat either, but women need to take a step away from power. Who's raising the family when both people are working? I think that's one of the main reason life is so messed up for alot of people. Nobody was around to care for the kids.

@cmclymer@xanga - i hope you didn't feel attacked; that was not my intention. i also don't think you're an a-hole. but i will ask again: why, if both are capable, should the final decision be accorded to one? (your own reasons, not your religion's.)

Aaaand that's where self-defense training (among other things) comes in. The easiest way to avoid this "dance" is to not get married, but it seems like even the most obstinate men and women can't help but get pulled into each other... unfortunately =P The Christian ideal here still makes me twitch, and I don't know if I could handle marrying into that situation--I think it might drive me crazy to even hear every so often that someone was the "head of the household."

As far as gender roles themselves go... I'm a pretty fiery feminist. I have mostly male friends, and I love them to death, so my qualms are not usually with them (they also have partial immunity haha): I usually direct my anger at women who only want to be what we, traditionally, have always been. Now, I still feel that there is a place (and has to be) for every person... so the women who truly wish to be married, have children, find a husband to support them, etc. are every bit as necessary as the women who, like me, feel affronted at the very mention of someone else taking care of them. But that doesn't mean that I still won't quickly back out of conversations about marriage and home life. I really try to keep my opinions to myself out of respect for the fact that, more often than not, these women are my friends.... sooo I blog. Or talk to a male friend and let it out.

Oh, I just remembered what angers me most about those situations (sorry for the sporadic thoughts)--women who will ENTER into/STAY in terrible marriages just because they want/need the comfort of a marriage, the support of another person, etc. etc. To be fair, this gets complicated when children are brought into the picture, but the general idea is that a woman will "settle" for the man who offers her a ring, and will continue "settling" to keep that union. That drives me up the wall, and if I had one wish for every member of my gender... it would be to do what makes you HAPPY. Keep doing what keeps you happy, and if you're not happy--don't stay. Pleeease don't stay. Self-sacrifice is noble, endearing, and may even earn you sainthood someday, but people ultimately need to remember to care for themselves.

@cmclymer@xanga - "Wow, so apparently there was no way to word that post without making myself look like a complete a-hole."

See, if I had this thought after writing something I might want to reconsider *why* what I had to say was offensive no matter how I said it. In this case, I believe it's because you've noticed the contradiction in trying to say that women are men's equals...except in their personal lives (which is essentially the argument you are making: yeah, women get a say, but it is the man who has veto power. It's like saying that Bangladesh really does have a say in what economic sanctions the UN proposes, even though they aren't on the Security Council).

You say that women in Christendom (you didn't say what denomination) go in knowing how the power dynamics will operate. I concede that there are women (a lot of them, probably) that expect this arrangement from their marriage - but that does not mean it will be a satisfactory marriage, or that it does not leave them at a significant disadvantage.

Furthermore, you must understand that things get murky when we involve religion - if a woman believes that being something other than a submissive housewife and mother will earn her eternal damnation (as in www.nolongerquivering.com), can she be said to be making a free choice to enter such a relationship?

"It's just that I am ultimately responsible
for what happens to my family. If, God forbid, my family was attacked,
who would it fall on to protect us? Me. Who would be expected to be the
strong one, the protector? Me."

Your posts fail to address the fundamental question of WHY these would be expected of you - due to your gender - and not your wife. I argue that this is due to the lie that men are stronger and better equipped to lead than women. The corollary of course is that women are overly emotional and cannot be trusted in a time of crisis to their heads.

What happens if the husband/father is abusive in the name of protecting his children/wife from "the World"? Why couldn't your wife protect your family? There are many stories of women lifting cars off their children (due to adrenaline, a response that could result from an attack in either male or female bodies), so surely she could fight off an attacker? And, dude, think of all the single mothers who HAVE protected their families - a Y chromosome doesn't really affect one's ability to work your ass off, be an emotional rock, and provide for your family. Or, you know, wield a knife, pull a trigger, or call 911.

Not allowing a woman an EQUAL say in decisions large and small that concern the entire family is effectively saying that she is somehow unfit for the job, simply because she is a woman.

@thewickedoboe@xanga - "I think it's riddiculous that women want
to be such equals to men and wear the pants in the relationship (lets
face it, there is no perfect equality if you want a relationship to
last. someone has to be head of the household.) but yet they expect men
to pay for them on dates, ask them out, and treat them like they did
women of the 20's. You can't have your cake and eat it too, girls. If
you want to wear the pants, don't expect to be treated like a woman."

Oh, I'm glad that all women who want equality all want to be treated exactly the same all the time. Shoulda known that when I asked my boyfriend out, or when I paid for dinner & movie pretty much every other date. But of course, you're still wrong. Having her meals paid for doesn't mean a woman forfeits her human rights; nor does being shy or happening to be the asked rather than the asker; and really, I don't know that life was so great for the vast majority of women in the 20s.

No perhaps we cannot have "perfect" equality, but we can damn sure have equality. Two (or more) people can cooperate to do things without creating hierarchy that leaves someone with the short end of the stick.

"Don't
get me wrong, women are capable of alot of things. I'm not saying I
want to be a doormat either, but women need to take a step away from
power. Who's raising the family when both people are working? I think
that's one of the main reason life is so messed up for alot of people.
Nobody was around to care for the kids."

Why should women be the ones to raise the kids? I recall it taking two to tango. And what about two men with children? Is it okay for them to just let the kids figure out themselves?

i think people ought to have a choice in whichever role they choose; one that is not based on gender, but on capability.  as for your example of finances, it's becoming a little more common for women to make as much, or more than, men.  when a relationship occurs in which a woman makes more dough, do you think that she should get more say than the man?  i think they should respect each other as equals and be able to come to an agreement that is based on reason, not on individual income or even genitals. 
respect, trust, and honesty are things every human of every gender can uphold, and if these things cannot be found in the household, they will not be found without.  i absolutely believe it is a matter of respect.  for anyone to say that a woman ought to obey her man ("or else"; and here you use god as a threat), is to say that she is unable to think for herself - no matter what you think otherwise. 
if that woman chooses to submit to her husband, that is her choice, her right. maybe she has never known anything other than submission, and maybe she is content to submit.  but no man, if he answers in all honesty, can possibly say that he considers his wife his equal if he insists on "having the final say", even if he does listen to her opinion. 
two wise people of any sound reasoning (with common tastes and beliefs, mind you) will come eye to eye on the most basic of decisions - finances, health, and education, for example.  thus, there is no reason why a woman should be thought of as inferior to a man, mentally, or in any other way.
also, if one person (either man or woman) is more capable of certain things, one may ask the other to take responsibility of whatever task that may be.   but that is a simple kindness.  if you are bad at math, you ask me to help with that, but i do not assume you are unable to do math, if you are only slow at it, making it time consuming and tedious.  in the same way if i am not very good at making meals, and you are, i should hope that you would gladly make them for me/us, so that we won't both be sick.  it's just logical, assuming both people wish to avoid a lot of hassle.  any two people in any kind of relationship ought to be a team.  as equals.