Same. I would say complementarianism, but in an individualistic sense, not a traditional or Christian sense where this means certain things for males and females. I don't view complementarianism and egalitarianism as being mutually exclusive. People should play to their strengths in a relationship rather than commit to playing to the strengths that society tells them they have.
It's worth noting that what you describe is egalitarianism, which suggests that while men and women can have complementary roles, these are not hard-wired by gender. Complementarianism suggests that these roles are a part of what God/nature intended the genders to be, and as a result are not individualistic but rather descriptive of the gender as a whole.
In my mind, I divide complementarianism into two categories: Soft complementarianism and hard complementarianism (privately I confess to thinking of them as Biblical complementarianism and unBiblical complementarianism, respectively).
I personally define soft comp as someone who believes that the man is the head of the household and that women cannot be pastors. While I disagree with this position, I understand it and I see where in the Scriptures they got the idea from. A hard comp, on the other hand, is someone who takes it a step further. These are people whose definitions of gender roles find only very tenuous support in Scripture - or, more likely, none at all. A hard comp might believe something like "Married women should not work" or at least "Married women should make less money than their husbands," "Men have to do the pursuing in a relationship," "Christians should not support female political leaders," "Men were created to provide and protect and women were created to care and nurture," "A stay-at-home dad is a violation of the God-given order of things," etc. Hard comps may believe in few, many or all of the above sentiments, and similar, but what makes them hard comps is that they hold to gender roles which are never directly stated within Scripture and which have very little (again, if any at all) indirect support. Instead, most of them are cultural views of gender roles which have been assimilated into the fundamentalist machine and maintained as though they were God-breathed.
It's worth noting that there's nothing wrong with believing in these things on an individual level. There is, however, a mountain of difference between the statement "As far as I'm concerned, the man should do the pursuing and wouldn't feel right if the woman took the lead" - which is fine - and the statement "It is universally wrong for the woman to take the lead. Any situation in which that happens is negative" - which is not. One states male initiative as a personal preference, the other states it (quite untenably, I might add) as a universal truth.
If you haven't guessed yet, I'm an egalitarian, and believe it or not, I arrived at that position through my reading of Scripture (there is a curious arrogance among some complementarians in which they assume that their interpretation is the only possible reading of the text, and that anyone who disagrees with them is just someone who has yet to submit to the truth of God's Word). I used to be a complementarian, actually, but study of Scripture combined with the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of complementarian theology led to me leaving that camp.
.png)
