JAMES H. writes:

Every time I hear the term “headship” I cringe. Not that I disagree with the idea (I wouldn’t be at your site were that the case), but that so unartful and clumsy an expression is employed to capture the essence of what you are saying. 

I have an ex-brother-in-law who used to employ “headship” as a battering ram to oppress my wife’s sister. He convinced her to place her entire net worth at his disposal and ultimately in his name in the name of “headship.” He insisted on her disconnecting from her family in the name of “headship.” He objected to her developing friendships outside of those he specifically approved in the name of “headship.” He insisted on building, with her money, an extravagant home including an infinity edge pool in the name of “headship.” 

He met any objection, no matter how insignificant, with the charge that she refused to accept his “headship.” When she discovered him browsing on homosexual pornographic web sites he furiously insisted that she accept his improbable explanations in the name of his “headship.” In fact, this reptilian creature was a minister, or, as my father would say, a man of the cloth. A conniving, manipulative, narcissistic sociopath who employed the milquetoast mealy mouthed non-judgmentalism of their particular brand of Christianity to oppress his wife. All in the name of his interpretation of the bible from which there was no recourse. 

Now, I will admit, that my sister-in-law, though kind hearted and generally sweetly disposed, can be a handful and may well have been susceptible to this odious creature’s entreaties because of her self-awareness of her occasionally pious stubborn nature. I sometimes wonder if the relaxed tolerant wishy-washy atmosphere of some of these big box Christian denominations provides the sort of environment where exploiters and sociopaths won’t be too closely examined.

For my part, the guy made my skin crawl from day one much to my wife’s dismay. Try as she might, I simply couldn’t tolerate this big galoot’s sanctimonious displays and I was convinced from day one he was a switch hitter at best.

My wife, my mother and my grandmother all exercised the artful practice of diplomacy, that is, the art of letting their husbands have the wife’s own way. We never discuss “headship” or dwell on who calls the shots. But darn it, I feel like I’m running the show, or at least I think I am. However, when I bother to think about it, it occurs to me that perhaps all may not be quite as it seems. 

I’m comfortable with our arrangement which evolved organically from both our life experiences unfettered by the raging popular relationship misconceptions. It never occurred to me or my wife that she would work outside the home. We never even discussed it. I suppose, on those matters I really care about, I do exercise some sort of ultimate authority but sometimes this occurs as a result of vigorous debate and discussion (read argument). Usually, we are of like mind and naturally arrive at the same place without rancor or acrimony. I love and respect my wife and neither of us makes much of a fuss about “headship” but our relationship works because of her. Because of her (mostly) yielding and giving nature. Because of her goodness and generosity.

Laura writes:

If only Dickens were alive and knew your ex-brother-in-law. It’s a sad story, and if it weren’t true it would be hilarious. He sounds like a male incarnation of Mrs. Joe Gargery, the character in Great Expectations who beat poor Mr. Joe over the head with a stick called The Tickler. Your former brother-in-law needs a woman with a Tickler of her own.

This “headship” idea can take on an ugly life of its own in the hands of a pompous tyrant. Fortunately, men like him are in the minority.

Please follow and like us: