Someone on facebook linked to a response to that, that I liked.
http://centerforwomenspsychology.wordpr ... me-really/
Its basic point is here:
Altruism isn’t sustainable long-term. You can’t draw from an empty glass. Neither is unbridled narcissism. So, there’s got to be a way for the two to interact. When both ideas are considered together, each idea (selflessness and self-interest) becomes complete. It’s not an either/or, but a both/and situation.
Anyway, I think it's more complicated than the original article made it sound. Yes, you should love your spouse and try to serve them, but it's a two way street. Your spouse should also be loving you and trying to serve you. And both of you need to let yourselves be served sometimes, or you accomplish nothing.
I think the issue of this thread is more complicated than the title makes it, too. It assumes there can be a simple yes or no, but that's obviously untrue. And "rule" is such a loaded word that means different things to different people in different contexts. So we've got a question that presents a false dichotomy in nebulous terminology: no wonder feelings run high!
Skipping all the context of what's come before because I forget exactly what was said and don't care to go back and read it, here's my opinion on the question:
Whoever spends most time in the home--does the majority of the decorating, cleaning, cooking, child-rearing--is likely to have more say in what happens in those arenas. Stereotypically, this is the woman, but it could also be the man. If you're the one who plans the meals, they're likely to reflect your tastes a little more. If you're the one that cleans the house, then you've thought through and have an opinion on where everything goes and what's most effective. If you're the one home with the kids all day (and this is totally theoretical for me, since I have no children), you've got a more practical idea of who your children are and how they respond to different parenting strategies, and you probably get a little edge in what those strategies are going to be, for that reason. Again, this is usually the woman, but if the woman were in an office all day and the man was at home doing those things, then he'd be the one with the extra knowledge of home and children, and so his preferences would carry slightly more weight. That doesn't necessarily mean that the homemaker's a bully and gets his or her own way everytime there's a conflict. I think it's more likely to mean that the non-homemaker recognizes that they don't have as much practical expertise in those arenas, or maybe just has no solid preference for issues that barely touch their lives (the color and arrangement of the kitchen, say), and so they often side with the homemaker, who they assume has a better perspective on home issues.
But that's the home. Do women rule in relationships? Going just on the question, it sounds like you're asking if, in a relationship between a man and woman, the woman is at an automatic advantage in any disagreement. The relationship, then, would not be an equal 50/50, but at least a 51/49, and possibly a more dramatic split. And gosh, I hope women don't have an unequal advantage, there. Sure, men are stereotypically taught chivalrous behavior--to look out for women and treat them well. But women are just as stereotypically taught to make men feel comfortable and loved and important. Each partner, ideally, would look out for the interests of the other. Which is probably where the "marriage isn't for me" article is coming in. Instead of trying to be the most powerful in the relationship, each person should be trying to build up their spouse, to understand where they're coming from, and make them happy. So yes, I agree with that. In a good marriage, it shouldn't be one ruler and one subject, but two servants, who serve each other. But servants, not slaves. Each should also be allowed to have their own needs and wants, and be able to spend some time NOT in the service of the other person.
TLDR: Ideally, the homemaker rules in the home, and there's an equal partnership, based on love and service and wisdom, in the relationship.
(And of course, like most ideals, that's easier said than done, so most relationships will be a little bit unequal. But I don't think that inequality comes down too strongly on gender lines, either. It's just speculation on my part, but I feel like I've met strong-willed men in about the same proportion of as strong-willed women. Match a stronger-willed someone with a weaker-willed someone, and you'll probably have a bit of a relationship inequality.)
