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.
I have my own somewhat neutral perspective on this issue of relationships in which someone (man or woman) must be the leader.
I was raised to believe that women were not necessarily meant to be subservient to men. And I witnessed women asserting themselves as equal to men (not physically, but in other ways). So it really isnt hard for me to envision a woman having equal input in relationships. This may rub other men the wrong way, and most no doubt think I have been indoctrinated by feminist ideology. And by feminist standards this may fly, but even by the standards of the average woman of this society, that is not the way a relationship should be. I think women want to be submissive at times, and at times they want to be equal to you. But if at anytime they feel dominant over their male partner, well his manhood within that relationship is pretty much a lost cause.
Supposedly as a man, Im expected to dominate situations and make decisions for both me and her. The problem is, that I actually view women as perfectly capable of making their own sound decisions, and I cant justify why I should have any authority whatsoever over them solely because of my gender. I realize that society traditionally says that men should always dominate and take charge of situations etc. But Im pretty secure with either eliciting the input of a woman, or making decisions on my own behalf.
Last edited by solytaire; 11-30-2009 at 04:48 PM..
I make the money, she makes the decisions on how to spend it.
Sounds like slavery.
Quote:
She interacts and does whatever social activities are necessary, without me. She gets plenty of control--I only ask that she does not work outside the home, so that she actually has time to spend with me.
And what are you surprised about? If both of us work, and our schedules don't overlap, that would give us very little time to spend together. So I prefer it if she doesn't work. Disabled women fit that bill often.
Sexual abuse of boys by women may be growing, but men still far outnumber women as the perpetrators.
Quote:
1. Sexual abuse of boys occurs in all race, socio-economic classes, and religions.
2. Boys who are abused are more likely than girls to be abused by middle-class family members.
3. Boys are more likely than girls to be from poorer families when the abuse is from someone outside of the family.
4. The average age for the onset of sexual abuse in boys usually falls between eight and twelve.
5. Boys are four times more likely to be abused outside of the family than girls.
6. Some studies show that non-family sexual abuse accounts for 83% of the sexual abuse of boys.
7. Boys are less likely to be the only abused child in the home.
8. Men make up the largest majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse for both boys and girls.
9. When the perpetrator is female, boys are 10 times more likely to be abused than girls. Some studies even go so far as to report 1 in 3 incidents of sexual abuse against boys are done by female abusers.
10. The largest number of abusers for boys is usually in a caretaker role to the child. Caretakers are often in the form of coach, babysitter, teacher, pastor/priest or mother’s boyfriend.
Men are found to be perpetrators in most cases, regardless of whether the victim is a boy or a girl. However, women are found to be perpetrators in about 14% of cases reported against boys and about 6% of cases reported against girls.
Dr. William C. Holmes's review of 149 studies of boys and young male adolescents who experienced sexual abuse revealed that more than 90% of their abusers were male ("Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae, and Management"). Male abusers of older male teenagers and young male adults, however, made up 22% to 73% of perpetrators. This older age group also experienced abuse by females, ranging from 27% to 78%. Adolescent babysitters accounted for up to half of female sexual abusers of younger boys.
More than half of those who sexually abused male children were not family members, but were known to the victims. Boys younger than six years old were more likely to be sexually abused by family and acquaintances, while those older than twelve were more likely to be victims of strangers. While male perpetrators used physical force, with threats of physical harm increasing with victim age, female perpetrators used persuasion and promises of special favors. One study reviewed by Dr. Holmes found that up to one-third of boys participated in the abuse out of curiosity.
I have my own somewhat neutral perspective on this issue of relationships in which someone (man or woman) must be the leader.
I used to as well.
Quote:
I was raised to believe that women were not necessarily meant to be subservient to men. And I witnessed women asserting themselves as equal to men. So it really isnt hard for me to envision a woman having equal input in relationships.
I was raised that way too. Then I learned to dance and had a very difficult time reconciling what I was taught as a child and what I was seeing in dance class. The girls were just too quick to accept the follower role. You might think that they accepted the role as a costume they could remove the second they walked off the dance floor but if you heard the (what some of you might call sexist) remarks that full instructors tell the women and witness the women nodding their heads in reply, you would realize that these women aren't putting on a follower costume when they get on the dance floor. They are followers by their very nature.
Oh, and once more. You can NOT ASSERT your equality. Asserting is a dominant act which contradicts equality.
Quote:
This may rub other men the wrong way, and most no doubt think I have been indoctrinated by feminist ideology. And by feminist standards this may fly,
In a way, yes. You should learn a partner dance.
Quote:
but even by the standards of the average woman of this society, that is not the way a relationship should be. I think women want to be submissive at times
Really? I suppose but I think you'd be hard pressed to find many woman ADMIT that they want to be submissive. Too proud. Also too fearful that this admission might give men license to think we have some sort of right to dominate them.
Quote:
and at times they want to be equal to you. But if at anytime they feel dominant over their male partner, well his manhood within that relationship is pretty much a lost cause.
Agreed.
Quote:
Supposedly as a man, Im expected to dominate situations and make decisions for both me and her. The problem is, that I actually view women as perfectly capable of making their own sound decisions, and I cant justify why I should have any authority whatsoever over them solely because of my gender. I realize that society traditionally says that men should always dominate and take charge of situations etc. But Im pretty secure with either eliciting the input of a woman, or making decisions on my own behalf.
Yes I can definitely relate. This is what I learned in learning to dance. Responsibility. If you are "supposed" to do something, get it done. Don't wait for someone else to do it. That's what being a man is all about. It's fascinating. Watch a room full of beginning guys passively sit back and wait for the girls to initiate something. Then watch a more advanced class. The guys are all more assertive. And it's not just about confidence in the dance. It's true even for the mundane activities. Like even if the instructor tells everyone in the class to face a certain direction, in beginning classes the girls will be the first ones to move. But as you witness more and more advanced classes more and more men make the first move. They really start to take their newfound leadership seriously. All because they learned that women WANT them to take the lead in life.
I used to as well.I was raised that way too. Then I learned to dance and had a very difficult time reconciling what I was taught as a child and what I was seeing in dance class. The girls were just too quick to accept the follower role. You might think that they accepted the role as a costume they could remove the second they walked off the dance floor but if you heard the (what some of you might call sexist) remarks that full instructors tell the women and witness the women nodding their heads in reply, you would realize that these women aren't putting on a follower costume when they get on the dance floor. They are followers by their very nature.
Oh, and once more. You can NOT ASSERT your equality. Asserting is a dominant act which contradicts equality.In a way, yes. You should learn a partner dance.Really? I suppose but I think you'd be hard pressed to find many woman ADMIT that they want to be submissive. Too proud. Also too fearful that this admission might give men license to think we have some sort of right to dominate them.Agreed.Yes I can definitely relate. This is what I learned in learning to dance. Responsibility. If you are "supposed" to do something, get it done. Don't wait for someone else to do it. That's what being a man is all about. It's fascinating. Watch a room full of beginning guys passively sit back and wait for the girls to initiate something. Then watch a more advanced class. The guys are all more assertive. And it's not just about confidence in the dance. It's true even for the mundane activities. Like even if the instructor tells everyone in the class to face a certain direction, in beginning classes the girls will be the first ones to move. But as you witness more and more advanced classes more and more men make the first move. They really start to take their newfound leadership seriously. All because they learned that women WANT them to take the lead in life.
some great points in here...very interesting interpretation of my post. I was wondering though: Do you think that those women enjoyed following because they were naturally inclined to or because the men in the class were reacting to some pavlovian indoctrination that says that assertive men do better?
This is my dilemma: Just as you stated that manhood is about responsibility and ownership of leadership, whats to say that the natural womanhood of those women, initially, wasnt about doing what needed to be done? Since they adopted this role of initiating interaction in that scenario, would this make them men as well? Ive seen females get up and do what needs to be done and do it well. Likewise Ive seen males be sloth-like, indolent, with no initiative. Neither of these conveniently fit into the mold of what it means to be a man or woman, because we've never really defined what it means to be a woman, independent of their relativity to men. Every definition of a woman is relative to what a man is. Therefore, the definition of a man, would presumably be relative to ?? --- God? It cant be relative to what a woman is, because that would mean that at their extremes, the two would be complete opposites. Well most people know that this could never be possible since male children evolve from female cell matter and retain a female chromosome. Or in Christian terms "Eve spawned from the rib of Adam"
These are the things that I find require pretty intricate explainations. I realize that hueristically and historically we have set expectations of each gender. But during those times that the roles are reversed, as they inevitably sometimes are, yet the same physical outcome is produced (in your example: that one partner initiated interaction with the other, to commence in a dance.), what indicates that manhood is gauged by leadership and assertion/responsibility, when those roles were and can so easily be reversed with the same outcome?
Last edited by solytaire; 11-30-2009 at 07:00 PM..
: Do you think that those women enjoyed following because they were naturally inclined to or because the men in the class were reacting to some pavlovian indoctrination that says that assertive men do better?
Not quite understanding the second option there. Let me simplify it and see if that helps...
The women enjoyed following because assertive men do better.
No, still not getting it.
My inclination though is that the women enjoyed following because it was in their nature.
Quote:
This is my dilemma: Just as you stated that manhood is about responsibility and ownership of leadership, whats to say that the natural womanhood of those women, initially, wasnt about doing what needed to be done? Since they adopted this role of initiating interaction in that scenario, would this make them men as well?
No because of the reason the women initiated the action that needs to be done. They first say to themselves (in a fraction of a second), "well he's not making it happen. I guess it's up to me then." The more "indoctrinated" the women are to aggressive feminism, the more experience they have with ineffective passive men, the more practice they have with picking up the slack that men leave, the quicker this thought happens. The women often become so used to taking action, the period of time in which they wonder if the man will initiate can become almost impreceptively short. Even to the extreme that they might deny that they considered the man at all.
While the women include men in their thoughts about taking action that the couple needs to take, men don't include the women in THEIR thoughts about taking action that involves the couple, once they learn that women want them to be the one to initiate the action. They just make it happen.
One of the things we have to teach women in dance class is that for the dance to work they must WAIT for the guy, constantly. Always. You can imagine what that lesson teaches men and women, especially when they connect dance to life. A girl in class might wonder to herself, "huh, I wonder if I waited for my boyfriend to call me, would he actually do it?" At the same time the guy might say to himself, "boy I should be a bit more proactive in my relationship and call her before she calls me."
Quote:
Ive seen females get up and do what needs to be done and do it well. Likewise Ive seen males be sloth-like, indolent, with no initiative. Neither of these conveniently fit into the mold of what it means to be a man or woman, because we've never really defined what it means to be a woman, independent of their relativity to men. Every definition of a woman is relative to what a man is.
I disagree. Women are irrational, social, nurturing creatures. Men are rational, assertive, make it happen creatures. Stereotypically speaking on both counts that is.
Quote:
Therefore, the definition of a man, would presumably be relative to ?? --- God?
Well, Biblically men are commanded to love their wives as Jesus loves the church. So the metaphor is not without merit.
Quote:
It cant be relative to what a woman is, because that would mean that at their extremes, the two would be complete opposites. Well most people know that this could never be possible since male children evolve from female cell matter and retain a female chromosome.
Again, I completely disagree. Many of the traits that give us masculinity come from many things that are biological in nature, like testosterone. Same thing with women. Most of their characteristics come from their female biology.
However, it's not entirely accurate to say that a pure female is opposite from a pure male. Apples and Oranges. Sure logic is opposite to irratinality, but prioritizing people is not the opposite of prioritizing action. A pure man will put his work first at the detriment of his family. A pure woman would put her relationships first at the detriment of work. But work is not the opposite of relationships.
Anyway all of this comparison stuff is moot because we do have a definition for female.
Quote:
These are the things that I find require pretty intricate explainations. I realize that hueristically and historically we have set expectations of each gender. But during those times that the roles are reversed, as they inevitably sometimes are, yet the same physical outcome is produced (in your example: that one partner initiated interaction with the other, to commence in a dance.), what indicates that manhood is gauged by leadership and assertion/responsibility, when those roles were and can so easily be reversed with the same outcome?
Honestly I think that leadership is learned by most people, disregarding alphas. They are BORN leaders. I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as an alpha female, but alpha males are far more common. If you watch any group of young children interract, a boy will usually step up and take charge. I know that some young girls do it too, but it is far more common for a boy to naturally step unto the leadership role and in the presence of an alpha boy an alpha girl will usually defer to him.
My inclination though is that the women enjoyed following because it was in their nature.No because of the reason they initiated what needs to be done. They first say to themselves (in a fraction of a second), "well he's not making it happen. I guess it's up to me then." The more "indoctrinated" the women are to aggressive feminism, the more experience they have with ineffective passive men, the more practice they have with picking up the slack that men leave, the quicker this thought happens. The women often become so used to taking action the period of time in which they wonder if the man will make it happen can become almost impreceptively short. Even to the extreme that they might deny that they considered the man at all. One of the things we have to teach women in dance class is that for the dance to work they must WAIT for the guy.
that could be, but this sounds more like a matter of practice and repetition (pavlovian effect) than any natural disposition to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx
While the women include men in their thoughts about taking action, men don't include the women in THEIR thoughts about taking action, once they learn that they should get it done. They just make it happen.I disagree. Women are irrational, social, nurturing creatures. Men are rational, assertive, make it happen creatures. Stereotypically speaking that is.Well, Biblically men are commanded to love their wives as Jesus loves the church. So the metaphor is not without merit.Again, I completely disagree. Many of the traits that give us masculinity come from many things that are biological in nature, like testosterone. Same thing with women. Most of their characteristics come from their frmale biological nature. .
I really think this is because every definition of womanhood that society has defined for women, and subsequently that women have defined for themselves has always been relative to men. And in truth, as the sex who competes for breeding rights, virtually all of a man's actions are done with the intent of improving his desirability/favorability for females.
Testosterone's effects in men are poorly understood. Aggression and tenacity etc, really have never been exclusively linked to testosterone. And testosterone receptors are even more important and lesser studied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx
However, it's not entirely accurate to say that a pure female is opposite from a pure male. Apples and Oranges. Sure logic is opposite to irratinality, but prioritizing people is not the opposite of prioritizing action. A pure man will put his work first at the detriment of his family. A pure woman would put her relationships first at the detriment of work. But work is not the opposite of relationships.
I realize that it is not accurate to say pure females are the opposite of pure males. This is why I said these paradigms we've concocted really are only relative. And in the case of this society, because we have never defined womanhood, they are only relative to what we define as manhood.
But I would disagree that these comparisons are moot. They are essentially what have defined each of our gender roles to this point. And in my opinion, the same comparisons when reversed sort of sends our established gender roles into obsolescence if taken literally. I would also say that in many ways work is the polar opposite of relationships. At least those nuclear family relationships. Work (military service, 9-5 work), historically, has entailed that men neglect their relationships with immediate family in favor of time spent at work. Unless one works with his/her family, time spent working is time lost improving relationships. And if a man works with his family, he technically isnt doing exclusively man's work. Which brings us back to role interchangeability.
But what I do agree with is that it is a lot easier for everyone (including women) to accept these gender roles and just partake of them at the end of the day.
Last edited by solytaire; 11-30-2009 at 07:07 PM..
some great points in here...very interesting interpretation of my post. I was wondering though: Do you think that those women enjoyed following because they were naturally inclined to or because the men in the class were reacting to some pavlovian indoctrination that says that assertive men do better?
This is my dilemma: Just as you stated that manhood is about responsibility and ownership of leadership, whats to say that the natural womanhood of those women, initially, wasnt about doing what needed to be done? Since they adopted this role of initiating interaction in that scenario, would this make them men as well? Ive seen females get up and do what needs to be done and do it well. Likewise Ive seen males be sloth-like, indolent, with no initiative. Neither of these conveniently fit into the mold of what it means to be a man or woman, because we've never really defined what it means to be a woman, independent of their relativity to men. Every definition of a woman is relative to what a man is. Therefore, the definition of a man, would presumably be relative to ?? --- God? It cant be relative to what a woman is, because that would mean that at their extremes, the two would be complete opposites. Well most people know that this could never be possible since male children evolve from female cell matter and retain a female chromosome.
These are the things that I find require pretty intricate explainations. I realize that hueristically and historically we have set expectations of each gender. But during those times that the roles are reversed, as they inevitably sometimes are, yet the same physical outcome is produced (in your example: that one partner initiated interaction with the other, to commence in a dance.), what indicates that manhood is gauged by leadership and assertion/responsibility, when those roles were and can so easily be reversed with the same outcome?
Hi solytaire,
One observation I can make is most women hate weakness and indecisiveness. The easiest thing to do in the world is not to throttle your assertiveness down. Forget your sensitivity training. Simply look at testosterone and the endocrinology. The increased muscle and bone mass and enlarging organs is a preparation to draw fire. Have a look at a women hobbling in her 3rd trimester and ask yourself if she wants to go into attack mode. Do you feel sensitive and needy? I know I don't. I simply don't worry about arranging equality. What it that anyway? I will discuss anything, but if I know its stupid, we are not doing it. If I know its the right thing to do, we will. I never had any complaints or any problem with that attitude ever. I was severely punished in my youth for offering deference. I'll take the heat for it, or shiver in the cold.
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.
