I don’t know much about Dr. Laura, but this thread and other gender stuff that I’ve heard of make me wonder if what they’re getting at (possibly clumsily or politically incorrectly) is the idea that women have been trying to be these, “I am Woman, hear me roar” type superwomen for more than 30 years now, and while it may be satisfying for the woman to have all these options, she may not realize that she is trying to do too much and therefore, is not doing everything as well as she could be (meaning the kids will be neglected and get into trouble because the parents aren’t at home and that the marriage will suffer because she can’t possibly pay as much attention to her husband as a happy marriage really requires - she’s either not home, too busy, or too tired to do anything, including having sex).
Then men are left out in the cold, feeling neglected and superfluous, not knowing what their roles in this brave new world are. It’s not like we need men to fight off invaders, hunt deer or chop firewood any more.
Meanwhile, these super-women, drunk on their own power and self-importance (so goes the theory), forget to be polite and kind to their husbands and don’t seem to be quite so “super” after all. Perhaps in another generation or so, the pendulum will swing back a little and women will stop trying to do everything and the divorce rates will fall (at least a little).
Of course, these works do not address the fact that economically, many, many families have to have two incomes. Also, sometimes they suggest the idea that it is still primarily the woman’s job to take care of the children, or that if one parent stays at home with the children, it should be the woman. Finally, there is the idea that, while technology and a changing world economy have enabled women to join men in the workforce as never before, socially or biologically we are still the same as we were in caveman days: we are hard-wired to want certain gender roles, and women are only hurting themselves if they want to try to usurp too much of what was the man’s role.
Personally (and speaking as a woman who adores and is eternally fascinated by men), I don’t know what to make of this. It doesn’t quite apply to my life, as I’m not married, so I don’t know how to evaluate it. I think maybe arguing over this kind of debate is an inevitable step in our still-changing gender roles. I think there must be something here, or we wouldn’t bring up these subjects. I am open to the idea that maybe (some) women are trying to do too much, to prove themselves when they don’t need to any more, and that (some) men are feeling unneeded. I had hoped that The Stepford Wives movie might have addressed this argument somehow.
When I see strong women in movies who can physically out-fight the men in everything from Aliens to G. I. Jane to King Arthur, I wonder what’s going on: are we saying we women have to rely on ourselves to take care of ourselves – that we just can’t count on men, or that we don’t feel safe in the world? Or just that given that we are physically smaller and weaker (most of us) than men (most of 'em), is it just a “look what I can do” empowerment fantasy – we know darn well that we couldn’t out-fight a man in the real world hand-to-hand (guns and bows and arrows are another issue)? I suspect a strong woman allowing a strong man to physically look out for her would be seen as offensive nowadays, and I’m not sure I understand why.
Anyway, just thinking out loud, here.
That is the whole point of the book…you have to be a team, and respect your partner, and want to be with each other. And you do that by expressing your love for each other in everything you do and say. The way you talk to each other, and about each other. The things you do for each other. The way you balance each other’s talents and skills into a working, loving relationship.