Over at Dalrock’s the issue of the man being head of the marriage came up and David Alexander pointed out that all this means is that the wife can play the blame game and claim victim status forever. The responses to David Alexander treated this all as a problem with his thinking, as if the problem was completely in David Alexander’s head. While DA does have his own unique issues this is not a case of that. DA did not generate this idea on his own. It’s widespread and here is a good example of that from Douglas Wilson, the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho:
When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for the all the problems. Some may be inclined to react to this, but it is important to note that responsibility is not the same thing as guilt. If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course she bears the guilt of her adultery. But at the same time, he is responsible for it.
… Husbands are responsible for their wives. They are the head of their wives as Christ is the head of the church. Taking a covenant oath to become a husband involves assuming responsibility for that home. This means that men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home.
You would expect a feminist to say men are at fault for everything. This is not a feminist saying that. It’s a Christian pastor. However, that (and the fact that its biblically and theologically unsound) is beside the point. The theology of male headship in marriage is used as an excuse to blame husbands for everything that goes wrong in a marriage regardless of what wives do. This shows how this is an idea that David Alexander did not come up with on his own. It’s widespread in the Christian church and elsewhere so its no surprise DA would have picked up on it.
Men can’t solve the problems caused by feminism and other forms of female supremacism by just thinking differently. There are a wide variety of forces arrayed against men. This Christian pastor is just one small example. The guns of the state are the other end of the scale.
I have not been convinced that the attempt at feminizing men has been all that successful. What instead has happened is that men are trying to navigate a minefield created by female supremacism so that they don’t lose their jobs, their assets, their freedom (i.e. go to prison), or their lives. What gets called the feminization of men for the most part is really a gun pointed at men’s heads. If a gun is pointed at your head, you will act differently. Take away the gun and most men will reassert their masculinity in a week. (Maybe not that fast but very quickly.)
Most people who talk about how men lack masculinity or are failing to lead (whether its marriages or in general) aren’t interested in actual masculinity or male leadership. They are just interested in something they can control and authentic masculinity and male leadership isn’t it. However their faux complaining about it creates shaming language they attempt to use to control men. This is what Douglas Wilson does.
You can change your thinking all you wish. You may need to do so. Chances are this is not your problem. More importantly this will not make Douglas Wilson or the gun the feminist state has pointed at your head go away because they exist outside of your own head.