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.
Again, another concept from a male-centered, patriarchal religion.
Quote:
It is all about order in a relationship the woman is to be submissive to the husband not because she is any less important but for the fact man is head of household as he takes on this role and without order there is chaos in the relationship.
It is all about order in a relationship the woman is to be submissive to the husband not because she is any less important but for the fact man is head of household as he takes on this role and without order there is chaos in the relationship.
This would make sense if the most religious, where I normally hear this type of rhetoric, were not at the highest risk for divorce (evangelicals, et al).
So is this true? If a man is submissive towards his wife it's bad. If a woman is submissive towards her husband it's not bad.
Why or why not?
My thoughts are that someone has to be the leader. You cannot have two people be the leader because it is a source of constant conflict. One person must be the decision maker. Now, certainly they can take the other person's opinions into consideration.
Usually, the men take on this role. Therefore, the woman must and should defer to her husband's wishes. A good husband of course will discuss big things with his wife so as to solicit her input.
I suppose if a woman were to marry a man who was so lame that he could not be the family leader or could not make good decisions, then the responsibility would fall on her shoulders to do these things. In that case, again, keeping with the pretext that there can only be one leader, I guess he would have to submit to her. I would feel sorry for her though, to have such an ineffective husband.
Well that is OK I guess because I'll be dead or alive with plenty of women to choose from. It will not be so good for older women who cannot find men.
My mother will be 70 in 2010. She's a ball room dancer lol. She is married, but has this rich guy in his late 50's/early 60's that his been swooning over her for years. He's friends with both my mom and step-dad. The man is good looking for his age. He has money. He's desparate. There are so many old needy men that hang around the ball room dance studios. Heck my grandma, who is 92 in December, was dating in her 80's lol. She could give a rat's arse to be honest.
My thoughts are that someone has to be the leader. You cannot have two people be the leader because it is a source of constant conflict. One person must be the decision maker. Now, certainly they can take the other person's opinions into consideration.
Well, what happens, god forbid, if two people actually agree? Why aren't there more marriages that end up like this? Maybe we wouldn't see people marrying 1-2-3 times if they actually married people they got along with.
What men are we talking about? Slaves or patricians? Can you really make a statement that a black man in the 18th century was somehow better than any women? Was it better to be mowed down on a beach even in the 20th century? Work place fatalities are still 90% male. One's lot in life has and always will be a function of class, not sex.
When I attended a course called Sex Marriage and Family the female professor noted that 12 of the top 20 operations are performed specially on women. She argued it was a sign of economic exploitation of women...??? So then if it were specifically on men it would be that we were ignoring them? Who can win this argument? Heads I win tails you lose. Women's needs in health care were said to be lacking despite the fact that woman have been outliving men.
Well that is OK I guess because I'll be dead or alive with plenty of women to choose from. It will not be so good for older women who cannot find men.
I am talking about men in general. Society has long been patriarchal, with exceptions here and there.
Men typically have always had the upper hand from the beginning. I'm not spouting some theory of men being big, bad, and evil, but coming from a strictly physical standpoint, men are stronger. Strong overrules weak.
Look at the major people from history. While there have been incredible women (such as Cleopatra, Maria Theresa, etc.), the majority of leaders and rulers were men - and still are.
Even today, many industries are male dominated and still follow somewhat of an "old boys club" philosophy.
All throughout history, women have often been subjected to their sexuality. Isn't it often determined whether a woman is "good" or "bad" depending on her virginity/promiscuity? Rarely are men's virtues ever subjected to what's between their legs.
And finally, I think the simple fact that for the longest time women had little to no rights and were basically seen as property speaks for itself.
I understand that men have their own set of plights, but to say that men's needs are neglected is far from true. Our society today is still fairly patriarchal. Men are seen as bastions of logic and women are emotional puddles.
Well, what happens, god forbid, if two people actually agree? Why aren't there more marriages that end up like this? Maybe we wouldn't see people marrying 1-2-3 times if they actually married people they got along with.
The odds of two people agreeing on everything 100 percent of the time is astronomical. Even people from similar backgrounds, same religion, same kind of upbringing, etc., will have different opinions. It's just natural. You can waste a lot of time trying to "convince" the other person that your idea/views are better, or you can just love them and trust them to make the decision that is the best one for all parties concerned.
I do not believe that you have to have an unhappy or bad marriage with a lot of conflict and anger to have different opinions about things. Goodness knows my husband and I see eye to eye on just about everything, but once in a while something comes along that we have different views on. I like ketchup on my hot dogs and he likes mustard. That kind of thing. LOL
As usual, let me go look up a word - umbrage, which wasn't that helpful. I'll trod along just the same. When responding to me via quote, I cannot tell, or at least will not assume, you are not directing your rhetoric towards me. But, to be clear, any insisting that takes place is venue specific. And this venue warrants it. No? That being the case, I absolutely insist and then some.
Hi Braunwyn,
It applies to anyone, even you. Whining commands no respect. I directed it at you because I have come to expect you are not an idiot and can actually handle an intellectual conversation.
Quote:
If it's a decision that affects me or the household? No. Unless, as your example (this thread or another) of boss is a factor.
I defer to my wife's expertise.
Quote:
Would she disagree with this decision, if it were a faulty decision, based on the fact that she's an auto mechanic? Sure, and this is exactly why submission is problematic. You would bring the household unnecessary financial consequences.
See comment above. Most women make lousy auto mechanics. I was a jobber in my 20s and I did not see one female auto mechanic. Were the heck are they?
Quote:
Again, this is male eroctica. It may fly with some, but it's getting boring for me.
Of course female submission is male erotica.
Quote:
What is not pretty is that bicep brawn is no longer held to high esteem. It has its place, but the prize is brain brawn now. Some are having a hard time adjusting. Oh well.
Its not just muscle. I just don't see the interest coming from women in many fields. Linux is a prime example. Trying to encourage women was a huge concern and still is. Men in this area try to convince women and fail to do so.
The odds of two people agreeing on everything 100 percent of the time is astronomical. Even people from similar backgrounds, same religion, same kind of upbringing, etc., will have different opinions. It's just natural. You can waste a lot of time trying to "convince" the other person that your idea/views are better, or you can just love them and trust them to make the decision that is the best one for all parties concerned.
For example? I'm hoping you can bring a real life example into one of these conversations, because I don't get it. What's the decision? Some say it's not about big decisions, because they're always dicussed. Then it's said it's about small decisions - who drives the car or picks the restaurant. I cannot fathom that kind of stuff ever mattering to anyone. So, I'm at a loss here.
It must be the big decisions, because people cannot be so shallow as to think where they order their pizza actually matters. At the same time, if two people cannot agree on big decisions - home they buy, religion, how they raise they're children, etc; I must wonder why they are together to begin with.
Quote:
I do not believe that you have to have an unhappy or bad marriage with a lot of conflict and anger to have different opinions about things. Goodness knows my husband and I see eye to eye on just about everything, but once in a while something comes along that we have different views on. I like ketchup on my hot dogs and he likes mustard. That kind of thing. LOL
Sure, that makes sense. But, does he make you have mustard on your hot dog? Of course not. I'm sure you would be running if he did.
It applies to anyone, even you. Whining commands no respect. I directed it at you because I have come to expect you are not an idiot and can actually handle an intellectual conversation.
Who is whining in this conversation, besides the salsa king and crew? The fact remains that these conversations never get down to brass tacks. Why? Because when the smoke clears, and all the gg settles down, there isn't much to go on. Submit to the male...submit to the male...submit to the male...it's a broken record that doesn't culminate. It's nonsensical.
Now, if there is some higher reasoning I'm missing, I'm asking, as usual, for it to be spelled out clearly - with the absense of mythological dieties if at all possible.
Quote:
I defer to my wife's expertise.
Deferring to expertise and submission aren't the same thing to me. I suppose it can be viewed that way, but it's flat. I may want to use some penut butter, but if my husband tells me he bought it back in June, even tho there is no tag on the bottle, I'll throw it a way. We don't have to use the charged word submit for common sense. The desire to, OTOH, is speaking of other issues imo.
Quote:
See comment above. Most women make lousy auto mechanics. I was a jobber in my 20s and I did not see one female auto mechanic. Were the heck are they?
I work in a lab where each instrument probably costs more than your house and is more complicated than standard autos. Most of our fire fighters (we call our tech ops engineers figher fighters lol) are women. Where the heck are you (general men)? Are you guys techicnally challenged? For that matter, most of the women, and the men, aren't American. They're Chinese and Indian. Are Americans technically challenged? Of course not. The lack of presence indicates a lack of interest or a lack of exposure. You married a woman that has no interest, so the both of you rely on your ability. If you, instead, married an automechanic, you would defer to her. Where gender comes into play here, I'm not sure.
If my dh's HPLC goes on the fritz at work (uni lab), he's not going to come here to get the mens opinion. He's calling his wife.
Quote:
Of course female submission is male erotica.
yes, that is the point of these threads. I suppose at this point you guys are crossing over to voyerism lol.
Quote:
Its not just muscle. I just don't see the interest coming from women in many fields.
The medical sciences have a strong female presense. Medical school admissions are now dominated by women as well. Will other sciences and computer gaming follow? Who knows. Tho, as a person that works in science, there's an umbrella that's impossible to avoid.
I have not been exposed to Linux. I've played with DOS a bit, but that was the extent to my non-windows experience. I clicked on a couple of the links you provided, which were links to other links in blog-type format. Perhaps you guys need to clean up the display, present a clear format, and go from there. The introduction is poor. Sorry.
For example, the first sentence in the intro -
"Clearly, people in the Linux community would like for more women to be involved in Linux, but most people don't know why so few women are involved or how to change that. This HOWTO is an effort to summarize the explanations, recommendations, and opinions of the women who already are interested and active in Linux."
This doesn't make much sense to me. The Linux community would like more women involved, but they are addressing women already using linux? Or those who have left? So, gwyn, if you want to make a point here, provide a source that actually discusses what linux is, and why it would be or not be attractive to women.
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.
