# Resolved: Complementarianism is still Sexist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-complementarianism-is-still-sexist/609538 "2012-01-14T22:41:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-complementarianism-is-still-sexist/609538/1 "2012-01-14T22:41:58Z")
It has become common for more conservitive relgions to claim a complementarianist dogma, which is basically “separate but equal” for the gender roles. With the exception that one party tends to be the absolute power, typically men. Can someone please make a compelling argument why giving an arbitrary gender absolute power is not gender discrimination? I do concede that there are demonstrable differences between the genders when viewed as a group, but I would argue that none of these traits is gender exclusive once you move down to an individual. Things get even more complex once you try to really define what gender is. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-complementarianism-is-still-sexist/609538/2 "2012-01-14T23:22:28Z")
I agree. I think a reasonable argument can be made that there should be an ultimate decision-maker in the family. A “boss” role, if you will. There’s a reason why workplaces aren’t democracies. Everyone’s got their ideas for what we should be doing, but not all ideas are good. And even if they were, you can’t try out all the ideas. Eventually, you’ve got to go with one. If two people can come up with an idea that they are both happy with, that’s the ideal. But to prevent head-butting, I guess I can see the benefit of turning the decision-making over to one person. I just don’t think it should always be the man. And personally, I don’t think it should always be the same person either, because marriage isn’t a business. There isn’t a hierarchy in a partnership. Essentialism is at the heart of the “man is the head of the household” argument. Men are more decisive, more rational, more practical, etc. Even if we assume these things are true, it does not necessarily follow that these things make for a better decision-maker. Like, I’d rather have someone spend a little time weighing risks and options–being a tad indecisive–than someone who acts impulsively. And sometimes relying on “reason” is not what the situation calls for, especially when it comes to child-rearing. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-complementarianism-is-still-sexist/609538/3 "2012-01-15T01:43:51Z")
It isn’t necessarily the case that the boss in “complementarian” families is always the man, but I guess that depends on what you consider complementarian. For example, I know plenty of Orthodox Jewish families in which there’s no doubt that the wife runs the show. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-complementarianism-is-still-sexist/609538/4 "2012-01-15T02:45:02Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Can someone please make a compelling argument why giving an arbitrary gender absolute power is not gender discrimination? No. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-complementarianism-is-still-sexist/609538/5 "2012-01-15T02:57:20Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Can someone please make a compelling argument why giving an arbitrary gender absolute power is not gender discrimination? Well, if we’d evolved so one gender was only as smart as, say, a dog and the other was as smart as human that would work. But in the real world…no. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-complementarianism-is-still-sexist/609538/6 "2012-01-15T04:15:23Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > It isn’t necessarily the case that the boss in “complementarian” families is always the man, but I guess that depends on what you consider complementarian. > > For example, I know plenty of Orthodox Jewish families in which there’s no doubt that the wife runs the show. I was mostly speaking of several Muslim and Christian churches who have officially adopted complementarianism e.g. the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran Church, Evangelical Free Church of America and the Christian and Missionary Alliance.