The Problem with “Headship”
January 13, 2011
FITZGERALD writes:
I also cringe when I hear the term “headship” used to describe what is natural male leadership in the family and society. To me, this word represents a perversion of the proper role of men which is husbandry.
The natural role of men isn’t dictatorship, but a careful and loving interplay with family and community. The man leads and tends a garden, whether it be wife and children, a congregation, or an entire people. Headship seems to be a misappropriation of terms with far too much emphasis on the wielding of power, and not enough on the cultivation and interplay between the parties. Men are called to be leaders, but “headship” smells of tyranny not leadership. Sadly, when I hear the term headship used it is almost always in the context of some thug of a guy who is pushing his wife and children around in an incoherent and selfish manner.
Laura writes:
Fitzgerald is right that husbandry is far better than headship. I also think father is one of the most beautiful words in the English language.
— Comments —
Stephanie Murgas writes:
I had never encountered the word headship until I started becoming accustomed to it as a natural and positive relationship. To me, headship is something granted by the person who submits themselves in the arrangement. My husband would not have headship over me unless I willingly agree to be in that position, so it can’t be enforced by someone in its true form. The bible directs wives to submit, not for husbands to make them submit, and this is closely followed by the direction for husbands to love their wives as their apparent main duty. So it is unfortunate that this word has such apparent bad connotations, and that some people see it as a power struggle, (wouldn’t a man who felt threatened be the type to try to force people into submission?) but in a feminist society, I suppose that is what it is.
