OK, my post yesterday apparently hit a nerve that I didn't really mean to hit on. I really was not trying to offend anyone. But I guess any time you take a narrow view of things you risk offending and causing controversy.
I think my brother-in-law Kevin's comment rang most true as far as saying what I was trying to say:
"So, the point is, Nancy you are a generalist. You like to be good at lots of things. You try not to overthink things. Your husband(and his brothers) can tend to overthink things, but that's because they hate to think, "Oh, shoot, it would have been better if..." But, again, neither one of these is better than the other. And it's not gender specific. There are many females who are the best at what they do - singers, gymnasts, etc. And there are plenty of men who are good at "everything else"!"
See the previous post for his entire comment.
I think what I should have said in my post yesterday was that that's the way Richard and my relationship works. He is really, really, really good at his job and what he does on the computer. That does not mean that he is not good at anything else. He is just definitely a specialist who excels in that area. But he is also a fabulous father, great at playing games and having fun, and many other things. I, however, have never studied any one thing long enough to become really, really, really good at it. But I think I'm relatively good at anything I try (with some exceptions like sports). So it works out well in our relationship for Richard to go to work and do his thing and me to stay home and manage lots of things.
I apologize for too much generalization. I hate to be lumped into groups that way, so I'm sorry that I did it to any of you.