Many people these days hate the idea of the head of the household. It’s one of those destructive feminist ideas, that being in leadership is the same as being superior. The hypocrisy in that is how they only object to this exact form of leadership. I’m going to explain why the existence of the head of the household is beneficial and how it should be like the head of state.
Leadership is Service
Something that people often forget is that leadership is a form of service. A good leader doesn’t exercise his authority to get his way but rather for the good of those he leads. He may not always abide by their will, but he never ignores it. We’ve all heard of army officers claim that “nothing’s too good for the men” and that’s the epitome of a good leadership attitude. Army officers don’t see those under them as their servants but rather people who need guidance to achieve a common goal. The head of a household should hold a similar philosophy. He should lead with the goal of creating a healthy family culture and protecting the well-being of his wife and children.
You Can’t Have a Democracy of Two
Nobody ever argues that children should have equal say, they are children after all, but that only leaves the two parents to make all the decisions. That works fine when they can come to an agreement, but what about the times they can’t. You can’t vote to settle a disagreement when there are only two voters, you’ll only ever get a tie. When a decision must be made but a consensus can’t be reached, it falls to a leader.
A Leader Must be Chosen in Advance
If you try to choose a leader when a decision needs to be made then you’re actually still trying to make that decision. You always need to choose a leader when there’s no other decisions to be made. Governments schedule elections to try to avoid that very problem. For that concern, it doesn’t matter who the leader is, so long as the choice is made beforehand. It works well to assume the man will be this leader, but that’s not the important point.
Head of Household, Head of State
A head of state has two primary roles; be the final authority and be the face of the government. It has never been common practice for a head of state to act entirely unilaterally. They always at least tried to get input, to fill in the gaps in their own knowledge of the situation. The head of a household should do the same, consulting with his wife and children when there’s a decision to be made.
The identity of a family comes from two places; the family as a collective unit and the head of the household. When a family needs to choose a representative or ceremonial leader, the duty tends to fall to the husband and father. Whenever there’s a need to attach a single name or face to a family, it’s the husband and father.
You can either be marginalised in your own home or the “king of your castle” and your family’s “head of state.” If you forego your place as the head of the household you lose your place in it, and simply become hanger on.