because my first thought was that hierarchy is not easier, because of all the passive resistance. Ask any parent! Also, in administrative matters, each spouse will become more expert in certain matters than the other, and it is more efficient for that one to make the relevant decisions, possibly w/support, help, and advice from the other. But in hierarchy--noooooOOOOooooo, the husband has to prove to the church, as well as to himself (he knows in his heart of hearts, he can't fool his wife) that He Is the (servant, gag) Leader.

(Eve)

Do you find that it is easier? simpler? to be in a traditionalist relationship? Do you ever wish you could go back to it?

(Oneko)

Easier how and for whom? Men may think dictatorship is easier. I doubt women would agree. And dictatorships, even benevolent ones, have their price as well.

When I first began to reconsider my traditionalist views, my wife panicked: "You're changing on me! You're not the man I married." Today, I'm delighted to say, she puts my egalitarianism to the test regularly.

(Dave)

Would you say that your practice of traditionalism occasionally created tensions in the family?Also...why do you think Bev felt threatened by your thinking along the egalitarian lines? I would imagine she should have been happy! :-D"

(Oneko)

O: "Would you say that your practice of traditionalism occasionally created tensions in the family?"

D: Marriage according to any model contains tensions. But in egalitarianism there is a greater potential for openly addressing those tensions. And this, I think, is what scares a lot of people, especially those traditionalists "in power."

O: "Also...why do you think Bev felt threatened by your thinking along the egalitarian lines? I would imagine she should have been happy! :-D"

D: She tells me there were a number of factors. One, I think was the general disorientation that occurs with any paradigm shift. It takes a while to figure out who you are and what is expected or acceptable under the new terms of the relationship.

Second, there is the responsibility that goes with equality. This can be frightening if it comes on you unexpectedly or if you have not been properly prepared for it. Freedom has its costs. Did she want to pay those costs for something she may not have contemplated wanting or not? Like the "happy slaves" of the south (there were a few), it may be difficult to see a good thing as good if it seems to be forced upon you.

Third, there is a kind of insecurity that comes with this, especially while there is disorientation.

Fourth, there are all those deeper questions of faith and doctrine -- i.e., "If we've been wrong about this, what else have we been mislead about?"

Fifth, this was not what she'd signed up for and had banked on for her future security and well-being. She now had to ask the same questions I was facing. Not because they were her questions, but because they were my mine. Did she want to sign up for this new arrangement? Did she have a choice? What if she couldn't agree to these new expectations and terms? What if she just wanted a husband who would take care of her, make the decisions, be the perfect father-image, etc.? What if her husband was no longer going to be the rock the she'd expected? Was this change in my thinking a sign she'd built her new life on shifting sand?

This discussion raises an important reminder for me. It reminds me that there are a great many subliminal and subconscious factors involved when we challenge traditionalists. If it were just a matter or proving our position with definitions and data, that would be one thing. But no one, not even the most rigorous scholars, can deal with this subject in a purely rational, logical, detached way. There is too much personal stuff at stake. Unless we realize this and address it within women and men, our arguments will forever be dogs chasing their own tails.