Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A husband is naturally equipped to lead his family. It doesn't mean treating his wife badly. Get over these radical feminist ideas. They are what are destroying marriages, in case you hadn't noticed.
I didn't say it necessarily was related to the original poster's post, only that it related if she was not being kind to her husband.
His dick makes him a natural leader? What a load of balderdash. You are clearly stuck in the wrong century.
His dick makes him a natural leader? What a load of balderdash. You are clearly stuck in the wrong century.
I think we all know the "Sound of Reason" is really the "Sound of A Personal Agenda" - their interest is more in promoting their personal social issues agenda than it is in helping out JerZ with actionable advice.
Only a few things cause a man to start neglecting his wife.
1. She get's fat.
2. He's cheating. Usually because she got fat or is witholding sex
3. She becomes a radicalized feminist and stops becoming feminine and more like a man
4. She has emascualted him into a beta herb. He is no longer sexually attractive to her and it is a vicous circle
Some husbands might be naturally equipped to lead the family, and if it works for the family, they should go for it.
Just because someone is of a certain gender though honestly doesn't mean they come with the skill set or motivation to be the family leader. To suggest otherwise is silly.
The man is the natural leader. If the man has character flaws, part of him being out of the will of God, then his natural leadership ability is being subdued.
That said, many women tend to believe that if a husband isn't doing what the wife wants, then he isn't being a good leader. This is nonsense.
A man is much more capable of leadership than a woman. Most women (though not all) are too emotional for the role of leader, whether it is in government or in the workplace. They tend to not look at the big picture, the end result of such actions, and so they often very rude to their employees or their constituents. Every survey says that male bosses are much more reasonable than female bosses. Even women prefer men bosses because female bosses tend to trivialize minor errors to the point that they become over-bearing and disrespectful, metaphorically stepping on such a person. This doesn't mean that there aren't some good female bosses, only that on the aggregate, a male's disposition and emotional state is more suited for fairness and gentleness in the workplace. There are some men who can be too over-bearing, but in general, it is far less as a percentage of male to male bosses verses female to female bosses.
Why do I mention this?
It's because a female's natural emotional state is not disposed to being the leader in the household. We can look at the effects of female-headed households, and the problems that ultimately occur without a father in the household and in which the female is the only parent. Sure, a lot of the problems are the result of a lack of fathers in the home, the result of feminist laws and courts which ensure that the man is economically destroyed and often cut off from his children. However, we do have studies that show that when children grow up in homes without a mother, and in which the father is the only parent, the children are less likely to suffer the consequences than they are in female-headed households, as statistics bear this out.
Why is this?
It's because women can't replace men in the role of headship of a house. Most do not have the ability to be natural leaders, and they don't have the persona of authority like a father does when the children get over ten years of age, especially into the teenage years. Fathers are more feared (in a good way) than are mothers. Teens are much more likely to test the boundaries with a mother than they are with a father because they often don't fear a mother's "wrath", but they do a fathers. Some of this is the result of a male's physical stature, but a lot of it is also emotional (behavioral).
Only a few things cause a man to start neglecting his wife.
1. She get's fat.
2. He's cheating. Usually because she got fat or is witholding sex
3. She becomes a radicalized feminist and stops becoming feminine and more like a man
4. She has emascualted him into a beta herb. He is no longer sexually attractive to her and it is a vicous circle
Number four is the result of emotional abuse, the result of number 3, in my opinion.
A husband is naturally equipped to lead his family. It doesn't mean treating his wife badly. Get over these radical feminist ideas. They are what are destroying marriages, in case you hadn't noticed.
I didn't say it necessarily was related to the original poster's post, only that it related if she was not being kind to her husband.
Feminists HATE this. Men are equipped to lead by nature. That is just the way it is. And the truth of the matter is, non brainwashed feminist women, women that are FEMININE, truly want a strong man to lead in the relationship.
From the looks of all Jerz posts, she has no one to blame but the feminists who brainwashed her into crazy for the failure of her marriage.
Another post about men working on vehicles? My father never did, and my husband rarely does. My husband has the skill set to cook meals..anyone can learn to cook if they really want to. My mom did more yard work than my dad. You can go through my neighborhood on any given day and see plenty of women working in the yard.
It doesn't really sound like you have studied relationships that much.
I did not say that men cannot cook, or that women can't cut grass. I was speaking in the general sense, in that I was speaking truthfully that most men are more cut out for working outside, whereas most women are more capable of doing inside work. Say what of it if you would like, it is what it is.
It doesn't mean that a woman can't cut grass (not speaking of ride-on mower), it means that physically she is less capable than a man, if the lawn is of significant size.
I'm aware that a lot of men do not work on their cars, and I'm one of them. My dad never did the same, so I never learned how to work on them. However, due to the strength needed to do car maintenance, the typical woman would not be strong enough to remove certain bolts within the engine, or to be able to tolerate the amount of oil and grease.
The typical man, relative to the woman, is not as capable in the kitchen because they didn't learn from their mothers how to cook various dishes. It is what it is.
Number four is the result of emotional abuse, the result of number 3, in my opinion.
I agree. But if you let a woman walk all over your and emasculate you, you deserve to have your marriage fail. If you couldn't see that you were getting into a relationship with a militant feminist that would never fall in line into what makes a succesful relationship, I have no pity.
Sound of Reason, I'd be perfectly willing to ignore you but you know you're riling people up, so why not read my actual posts to see who does what and when, etc. and what I've tried to make my husband happy and to get him to act in a reasonably kind way toward me? Your posts have NOTHING to do with my relationship. It's like comparing apples to minivans.
Can you provide a link to your original post?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
