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.
You have simply merged the concepts of free choice and egalitarianism together. Your definition only encompasses free choice, not egalitarianism. Reducing freedom to mean simply meaning personal chocie, reduces it to a narrow and useless freedom.
And you seem to be implying that women's work is degrading and low level, which I agree with, but someone has to do it so it might as well be women.
No, that's not what I meant to say at all. You keep toting that word (egalitarianism) like it means that once we are all equal, we will all have the same skill sets and all do the same amount and type of work. The fact still remains, though, that not all of us strive for the same things. Our society wouldn't work if different people didn't do different jobs. My point was that all that egalitarianism does is make everyone equal and afford each individual the opportunity to choose what they want to do with themselves. That doesn't mean that everyone will choose the same thing.
Just because I'm equal to you doesn't mean that you and I automatically have the same skill set or even that I'm interested in acquiring the same skill set as you. You are interested in politics and I am interested in art. You claim to want to enlighten your wife by "emancipating" her and I understand that she knows that she has the choice to work but chooses to be a housewife. You claim that "open love" is best for society and I have actually educated myself on the subject and know that traditional marriages are what has been proven to be best for children when the circumstances are optimal (meaning that both parents love and respect one another and aren't married because of extenuating circumstances).
My point was that even when everyone is equal, not everyone will choose the same path and you can't make them do so no matter what. Housework is demeaning? Cooking is demeaning? Taking care of children in demeaning? There are plenty of women out there who chose to be housewives that would have much to say in the contrary to those statements. There are also plenty of single guys out there who would beg to differ. The cleanliness of your home, no matter what sex you are, shows the amount of self esteem that you have and cleaning up your home with your kids is not only a good life lesson but a great bonding experience.
But fine, you want to liberate your wife by force? Then shut up and do it. YOU clean the house, YOU cook, YOU clean the kitchen and toilets and do the laundry and fold the clothes and hang them up. YOU buy the clothes that you want her to wear and give them to her as gifts and see if she'll wear them. Call businesses and set up job interviews for her. But if you truly want to liberate her, liberate her from you. You claim that you wouldn't care if she just left you altogether, right? Then why don't you just leave her?
People cannot seem to understand that living a submissive lifestyle is who some of us are. My first husband pushed me constantly to be an "independent, professional working woman". I could never understand why I was so unhappy in this role. It was not until I met my last husband, who allowed me to be a submissive wife, that I discovered what happiness truly is.
Not everyone is cut out to be a feminist. Some of us just prefer to be good wives.
20yrsinBranson
What a cop-out!
Independent, professional woman and good wife are not mutually exclusive of each other.
The "submissive wife" ploy is just another euphemism for passive-aggresssive behavior(which some might know something about), and also an excuse to not make decisions on anything.
What a cop-out!
Independent, professional woman and good wife are not mutually exclusive of each other.
The "submissive wife" ploy is just another euphemism for passive-aggresssive behavior(which some might know something about), and also an excuse to not make decisions on anything.
I am not saying that my experience applies to everyone. It was just a personal anecdote. I make decisions every single day of my life. I make the decision to let my husband be the boss. So in actual fact, I am totally in control of the happiness of my family and my life. By "allowing" him the right and the respect of being the man of the house and the head of the household, I ensure that our family stays together and is happy.
I think the numerous threads about what being submissive means proved that it's meaningless.
If a husband does what his wife wishes, he is "courteous," he "listens to her," he allows her to "influence his decisions," he is "respectful." If a wife does those things, she is "submissive," she lets him "be the boss." It's just semantics to fluff people's ego. Whatever floats your boat ... but it's BS.
I love this line from the film My Big Fat Greek Wedding: "Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants."
It's just that some women haven't learned to use their neck muscles yet, or they don't want to.
Ah hell, this thread makes me feel like I jumped back in time to the 18th century or something.
Quote:
All I'm trying to do is build an equitable relationship. Aristotle believed it was in a slave's nature to be a slave.
Well, it was pretty different back when Aristotle could still talk, right? As I said, you are stuck in the past big time. You start from the premise that women feel inferior to men and should be motivated to feel equal. You tend to think that women have worse and more demeaning jobs and responsabilities in this society. In times of warr, buddy, women were stuck at home, working, taking care of the kids ...doing everything while their men went off to kill themselves. That goes to prove that women can and will have confidence in themselves.
Best advice you can get is to back the hell off, let your wife do whatever makes her happy. Actually ask her that...what she thinks makes her happy and let her DO IT! Whether she decides to be a housewife, a politician, a cop or a stripper. :P
Saying 'I don't care if you want to leave me' translates into 'I don't give a ... if you leave, I'm fine without you'. That makes for a sad relationship. It's like a mother would tell a child..'ah, go ahead, kill yourself, if you die I'll make another'. You seriously can't understand why this is wrong?
I think the quote in question was used to illustrate the innate nature of humanity rather than making reference to any particular instance in time.
And I think it is a very worthy quote.
20yrsinBranson
My point is that Aristotle and the ancient Greeks, and whites in the US South more recently, believed it was simply the nature of a slave to be a slave. We don't have any stereotypes any more that Black males are supposed to be submissive, do we?
And isn't that what many here are saying when they talk about what is in a woman's innate nature?
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.
