I tend to agree that at least some parts of the article are cloyingly through to troublesomely paternalistic. (I also tend to assume that's why anitram chose to post it in this particular thread; I could be wrong.) Especially,
I won't be by their sides to lead them or guide them and show them the way they should go. All of these things will be up to your son.
A spouse is a partner, not a leader, guide, or substitute parent.
Without you my daughter has little hope of a bright future. The landscape of America is littered with broken women who have had their lives ruined by boys who were never taught how to be men.
This one bothers me the most. People who aren't already cracked seldom "break" from the strains of sharing their lives with partners they themselves chose. If your daughter is attracted to "boys who were never taught how to be men," then guess what, that tells you as much about her unresolved issues as it does about theirs. And anyone of either sex who looks to their partner to resolve said issues for them is bad news.
Treat your wife like she deserves to be treated. Shower her with praise, serve her and give your life completely over to her.
Mature men and women don't want to be fawned over, catered to or clung to by their partners, but to be shown respect, thoughtfulness, affection, desire, and to always keep challenging each other and aspiring together to become something greater than the sum of their parts. A little strategic doting now and then can be welcome and necessary for both partners, but as an overall metaphor for the relationship, this is way too stagnant and way too little about the 'We.'
To be fair to the author, sometimes it's easier than it should be to make hair-trigger associations between certain familiar-sounding phrases and the oppressive social practices
some people fond of using them follow. It's not like he anywhere says "And I won't give my daughters foolish ideas about pursuing ambitious careers, or thinking their lives could ever be complete without children" or stuff like that, and as far as it goes, there's nothing he asks for here that's really incompatible with raising men who'd accept (or even specifically want) such a partner. It is true that it's much, much harder to raise children you're reasonably confident will have a good shot at a stable and productive marriage (should they want that) than it is to raise children you're reasonably confident will have a good shot at becoming an astrophysicist (should they want that). It's perfectly normal to think from time to time about one's children as future partners to others, and to wonder what kind of people will fall in love with them, because for virtually everyone, that particular need will be a constant throughout their adult lives, and the choices they make to satisfy it will have profound effects on them. And thinking about this is probably especially common with children of the opposite sex, because (so you think) you understand 'the kind of people' who'll fall in love with them that much better, which is both a reassuring and unnerving thought. They're wholly different individuals from you, you realize that more and more with every day they age, and at times that can be frightening, tempting you to turn your thoughts to regulating their external social environment as best you can, because the internal one often doesn't seem to make much sense anymore. Also, this guy's daughters are young, all children that age are highly vulnerable to pretty much everything, and at times you can't help but see all the good and promising things about them through that prism.
Anyhow, it's a long way from there to the noxious variety of paternalism that considers "Dress like a slut, get raped" morally acceptable advice. Any connection would lie in the fact that the kind of man who tends to think of women as achingly innocent, angelic, fragile beings is the flip side of the kind who tends to think of them as titillatingly treacherous, bestial, domitable ones. Neither is desirable in a husband, or a father.
