constitution and temperament. The right way for A and B might prove to
be just the wrong way for C and D. The problem is one which has to be
worked out by each couple afresh. It is a problem of mutual
accommodation between two persons each of whom is an original creation
of God. It is the problem of taking two different life themes and
working them into one harmony.

Nor do I think that we achieve much by thinking or speaking of "rights"
in this connection--about "his" right to rule here, and "her" right to
be considered there. No doubt husbands and wives have rights--
inalienable and august rights. But married life is part of love's
domain, and in that region the language of the law courts is out of
place. When either of the two begins to think about enforcing or
claiming rights something has already gone wrong.

And this I think is chiefly a point for men to consider. The conception
of a husband as a sort of Czar within his own home still lingers,
though it may not be openly proclaimed. Men still grow up with the idea
that a wife should be a sort of submissive and very charming slave,
honored by occasional demonstrations of affection, and that the whole
household should be ordered to suit his lordship's convenience. Such
men will protect their wives, give them money, make love to them, humor
them, and honor them in public; and in return will expect something
little short of sheer submission. Behind all this lurks the
half-conscious idea that woman is man's inferior, and that idea really
does remain hidden even in the minds of some who would repudiate it. The
fact is that the ultimate value of marriage--the thing that makes it
good fun, as well as a noble thing--lies in the fact that men and women
are so different; that they have not the same powers, and can
alternately take the lead in their common life. It is comradeship, and