Skip to main content


(Not to be confused with antidisestablishmentarianism.)

My mom and I recently semi-discussed (for twenty seconds, in the van, on our way to Wal-mart or something) the difference between the complementarian and egalitarian constructs of relationships between men and women. (I don't even remember why.)

Anyhow, I saw an article today that reminded me of that again. It's obviously complementarian, as can be expected from a Focus on the Family blog/webzine, and shows how the author interprets the leading/submitting roles of a husband and wife. I thought it was fascinating (and pretty much right, too, for what my nineteen-year-old's opinion is worth). Part of it discusses how passive a lot of today's guys have become.

And that, in turn, made me think of one of my, ah, annoyances with other guys my age. I can't call them men (well, not most of them) because they lack maturity and passion for something (their vocation or something similar to which they put forth energy). They just sit there in classes with their shaggy hair and their laid-back demeanor... as if nothing were worth any effort. It's sad to feel a slight tinge of disdain towards many of my peers.

It's a semantic difference--the guys and the men--but an important one to me.

Ah, two in the morning... I should go to bed. G'night.


Popular posts from this blog

Life together #2: Hope deferred

The Miata Diaries: Tandem camping

The Miata Diaries: Eloping (sort of)