Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Page 71 of 100 [ 1585 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 ... 100  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 10:01 am

Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
The roles you speak of are artificial


I beg to differ. They are, as I said earlier, suggested by nature. Women are better at running homes and nurturing kids, and men are better at physical labor. You can be mad about it, but that's a different issue. One called "feminism".


I actually suck at nurturing kids, and I may be able to cook and clean but actually trying to run a home? unless it's just me there that might be an issue so I'd be careful about assuming all females are good at the exact same things and all males are good at the exact same things. These kinds of generalizations don't really help either side.

Not that I am particularly worried as I am probably going to just start considering myself gender neutral, regardless of my biological gender...then I'm not obligated to try and live up to either role :twisted: .


As I said earlier, there are exceptions to the rule. Take yourself. You yourself feel pretty gender neutral, or at least not particularly feminine, so you sound to me like you would be an exception. Also, I'm not saying women are born knowing how to take care of a home or raise children, and that they cannot do physical labor. I'm saying that their instincts are such that training in domestic areas is usually more successful with women than with most men.


Alright I guess I can see that, I just feel like the whole cooking and cleaning stereotype...is a bit more than the differences biology suggests. But I would certainly have to acknowledge that in general due to female biology and mental functioning many females might be better at that sort of thing.......especially the nurturing children since even female animals more commonly nurture the children than male animals. But in order for that to work the biological gender has to match up with the psychological gender. I would be of the opinion females should have every right to be home-makers if they want, and every right not to if they don't........even if unlike me they still fancy themselves a 'woman' either way.

But it's hard to separate between what are social gender roles....or the actual biological differences between gender. Either way though I don't think anyone is ever superior or inferior to anyone else based on gender.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 10:03 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
CDD can be as mutually agreed upon as you want, it does not change the fact that it is not a system of equality.



Are differing sets of gentalia equal? When estrogen predominates in one gender, and testosterone the other gender, is that equal? When we elect a president to preside over us, is that an equal arrangement, so that we can preside over him too? The fallacy that you are using is that whatever is unequal is therefore wrong. I guess it's wrong when there's a boss and employees, and it's wrong when there's a sergeant directing a corporal, and it's wrong when a ship captain doesn't let his passengers steer the boat. These arrangements are not equal, yet they function well, and are not wrong in any way. Same with the sexes, as I said a few pages back. Different is not wrong, it is simply different. And roles are not wrong, as I illustrated above in several ways.


Wait you seriously think the differences between males and females indicate, males should be in charge of females? I'd have to disagree there.


Primarily, I'm saying that, in a marriage, it usually works best for someone to lead. Marriages include two people into one marriage. The two people are -- being two -- independent individuals. But when they decide to be in one marriage, that marriage isn't two independent halves. When I drive my wife across the state to see her parents, only one of us drives at any given time. I don't ask my mechanic to install a steering wheel on the passenger side, even though that would serve marital equality better than just having one. The reason is obviously that the car drives better with one person driving it than with two. A marriage is the same way. My wife understands -- and is happy to tell others -- that our marriage works best when I lead and she follows. What I'm saying is that I don't consider that leader/follower relationship of ours to be an anomaly in that it works, but rather quite the contrary.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 10:13 am

Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
CDD can be as mutually agreed upon as you want, it does not change the fact that it is not a system of equality.



Are differing sets of gentalia equal? When estrogen predominates in one gender, and testosterone the other gender, is that equal? When we elect a president to preside over us, is that an equal arrangement, so that we can preside over him too? The fallacy that you are using is that whatever is unequal is therefore wrong. I guess it's wrong when there's a boss and employees, and it's wrong when there's a sergeant directing a corporal, and it's wrong when a ship captain doesn't let his passengers steer the boat. These arrangements are not equal, yet they function well, and are not wrong in any way. Same with the sexes, as I said a few pages back. Different is not wrong, it is simply different. And roles are not wrong, as I illustrated above in several ways.


Wait you seriously think the differences between males and females indicate, males should be in charge of females? I'd have to disagree there.


Primarily, I'm saying that, in a marriage, it usually works best for someone to lead. Marriages include two people into one marriage. The two people are -- being two -- independent individuals. But when they decide to be in one marriage, that marriage isn't two independent halves. When I drive my wife across the state to see her parents, only one of us drives at any given time. I don't ask my mechanic to install a steering wheel on the passenger side, even though that would serve marital equality better than just having one. The reason is obviously that the car drives better with one person driving it than with two. A marriage is the same way. My wife understands -- and is happy to tell others -- that our marriage works best when I lead and she follows. What I'm saying is that I don't consider that leader/follower relationship of ours to be an anomaly in that it works, but rather quite the contrary.


I am not talking about driving, I am saying even in marrige I don't think it would be appropriate for one in the couple to be 'in charge' of the other. Like an adult punishing an adult for mis-behavior based on 'I'm the man in the relationship' is not something I'd agree with for instance. I also don't think vice versa 'I'm the woman so I rule over the man' would be cool either.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 10:25 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Either way though I don't think anyone is ever superior or inferior to anyone else based on gender.


Absolutely. I'm trying to explain in this thread the difference between roles and inferiority/superiority. Like I said, in the old South, the women were just as proud to be seen as women as the men were to be seen as men. They saw roles for themselves that fit together in a constructive way in their society. It wasn't about "better", but about celebrating differences and the way those differences complimented each other.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 10:30 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
CDD can be as mutually agreed upon as you want, it does not change the fact that it is not a system of equality.



Are differing sets of gentalia equal? When estrogen predominates in one gender, and testosterone the other gender, is that equal? When we elect a president to preside over us, is that an equal arrangement, so that we can preside over him too? The fallacy that you are using is that whatever is unequal is therefore wrong. I guess it's wrong when there's a boss and employees, and it's wrong when there's a sergeant directing a corporal, and it's wrong when a ship captain doesn't let his passengers steer the boat. These arrangements are not equal, yet they function well, and are not wrong in any way. Same with the sexes, as I said a few pages back. Different is not wrong, it is simply different. And roles are not wrong, as I illustrated above in several ways.


Wait you seriously think the differences between males and females indicate, males should be in charge of females? I'd have to disagree there.


Primarily, I'm saying that, in a marriage, it usually works best for someone to lead. Marriages include two people into one marriage. The two people are -- being two -- independent individuals. But when they decide to be in one marriage, that marriage isn't two independent halves. When I drive my wife across the state to see her parents, only one of us drives at any given time. I don't ask my mechanic to install a steering wheel on the passenger side, even though that would serve marital equality better than just having one. The reason is obviously that the car drives better with one person driving it than with two. A marriage is the same way. My wife understands -- and is happy to tell others -- that our marriage works best when I lead and she follows. What I'm saying is that I don't consider that leader/follower relationship of ours to be an anomaly in that it works, but rather quite the contrary.


I am not talking about driving, I am saying even in marrige I don't think it would be appropriate for one in the couple to be 'in charge' of the other. Like an adult punishing an adult for mis-behavior based on 'I'm the man in the relationship' is not something I'd agree with for instance. I also don't think vice versa 'I'm the woman so I rule over the man' would be cool either.


I think what you're doing is you're assuming a hostility in such a relationship, that isn't there when it's practiced the right way. There is no hostility in my marriage about the roles we have. Rather, it is something we have both found works great for us. But the idea came from my religion. So, for me it's twofold: firstly, it is part of my religion; secondly, my wife and I have actually found out for ourselves that it works in practice.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 10:38 am

Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
CDD can be as mutually agreed upon as you want, it does not change the fact that it is not a system of equality.



Are differing sets of gentalia equal? When estrogen predominates in one gender, and testosterone the other gender, is that equal? When we elect a president to preside over us, is that an equal arrangement, so that we can preside over him too? The fallacy that you are using is that whatever is unequal is therefore wrong. I guess it's wrong when there's a boss and employees, and it's wrong when there's a sergeant directing a corporal, and it's wrong when a ship captain doesn't let his passengers steer the boat. These arrangements are not equal, yet they function well, and are not wrong in any way. Same with the sexes, as I said a few pages back. Different is not wrong, it is simply different. And roles are not wrong, as I illustrated above in several ways.


Wait you seriously think the differences between males and females indicate, males should be in charge of females? I'd have to disagree there.


Primarily, I'm saying that, in a marriage, it usually works best for someone to lead. Marriages include two people into one marriage. The two people are -- being two -- independent individuals. But when they decide to be in one marriage, that marriage isn't two independent halves. When I drive my wife across the state to see her parents, only one of us drives at any given time. I don't ask my mechanic to install a steering wheel on the passenger side, even though that would serve marital equality better than just having one. The reason is obviously that the car drives better with one person driving it than with two. A marriage is the same way. My wife understands -- and is happy to tell others -- that our marriage works best when I lead and she follows. What I'm saying is that I don't consider that leader/follower relationship of ours to be an anomaly in that it works, but rather quite the contrary.


I am not talking about driving, I am saying even in marrige I don't think it would be appropriate for one in the couple to be 'in charge' of the other. Like an adult punishing an adult for mis-behavior based on 'I'm the man in the relationship' is not something I'd agree with for instance. I also don't think vice versa 'I'm the woman so I rule over the man' would be cool either.


I think what you're doing is you're assuming a hostility in such a relationship, that isn't there when it's practiced the right way. There is no hostility in my marriage about the roles we have. Rather, it is something we have both found works great for us. But the idea came from my religion. So, for me it's twofold: firstly, it is part of my religion; secondly, my wife and I have actually found out for ourselves that it works in practice.


No I am saying I disagree with someone in a relationship 'controlling' and even punishing the other one in the relationship if they do something perceived as 'wrong' by the other based on if they have a penis or a vagina.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


myth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 707

05 Apr 2012, 10:39 am

The Christian model, when executed correctly, can work well for some people. There's always people who won't fit into any model and being forced into a dominiant or submissive role when you are not that way naturally is never fun. But if two people both willingly accept and understand their roles and feel comfortable in them, then I see nothing wrong with that.

There isn't anything inherintly wrong with hierarchy.


_________________
Non-NT something. Married to a diagnosed aspie.

Nothing is absolute.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 10:44 am

myth wrote:
The Christian model, when executed correctly, can work well for some people. There's always people who won't fit into any model and being forced into a dominiant or submissive role when you are not that way naturally is never fun. But if two people both willingly accept and understand their roles and feel comfortable in them, then I see nothing wrong with that.

There isn't anything inherintly wrong with hierarchy.


Well if both sides consent and are ok with it, I cannot tell them what to do......though I might question what sort of up-bringing taught them being punished & ruled over by a fellow 'adult' because they are your husband is a good and positive thing. Even if its not a hostility thing I still just cannot fathom how that would be healthy.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 10:45 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
No I am saying I disagree with someone in a relationship 'controlling' and even punishing the other one in the relationship if they do something perceived as 'wrong' by the other based on if they have a penis or a vagina.


Okay. Does that include when both people are for this kind of arrangement? She likes when I assert myself -- it is manly to her. It makes her feel both loved, and loving toward me. She grows cold and distant when I go for long periods without asserting myself and my will. There is, of course, a disrespectful way to be assertive, but there is also a respectful way, and she knows the difference. She is not asking for me to be a jerk -- nothing would turn her off faster. She is asking to powerfully feel my being her husband.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 10:46 am

Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
No I am saying I disagree with someone in a relationship 'controlling' and even punishing the other one in the relationship if they do something perceived as 'wrong' by the other based on if they have a penis or a vagina.


Okay. Does that include when both people are for this kind of arrangement? She likes when I assert myself -- it is manly to her. It makes her feel both loved, and loving toward me. She grows cold and distant when I go for long periods without asserting myself and my will. There is, of course, a disrespectful way to be assertive, but there is also a respectful way, and she knows the difference. She is not asking for me to be a jerk -- nothing would turn her off faster. She is asking to powerfully feel my being her husband.


Well like I said if two people consent it's their life, really none of my business.........I still don't agree with what I described though.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Alexender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194
Location: wrongplanet

05 Apr 2012, 10:47 am

Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
No I am saying I disagree with someone in a relationship 'controlling' and even punishing the other one in the relationship if they do something perceived as 'wrong' by the other based on if they have a penis or a vagina.


Okay. Does that include when both people are for this kind of arrangement? She likes when I assert myself -- it is manly to her. It makes her feel both loved, and loving toward me. She grows cold and distant when I go for long periods without asserting myself and my will. There is, of course, a disrespectful way to be assertive, but there is also a respectful way, and she knows the difference. She is not asking for me to be a jerk -- nothing would turn her off faster. She is asking to powerfully feel my being her husband.


She just wants an owner


_________________
www.wrongplanet.net


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 10:58 am

Alexender wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
No I am saying I disagree with someone in a relationship 'controlling' and even punishing the other one in the relationship if they do something perceived as 'wrong' by the other based on if they have a penis or a vagina.


Okay. Does that include when both people are for this kind of arrangement? She likes when I assert myself -- it is manly to her. It makes her feel both loved, and loving toward me. She grows cold and distant when I go for long periods without asserting myself and my will. There is, of course, a disrespectful way to be assertive, but there is also a respectful way, and she knows the difference. She is not asking for me to be a jerk -- nothing would turn her off faster. She is asking to powerfully feel my being her husband.


She just wants an owner


A certain extent of mutual ownership is part of marriage, otherwise both spouses could freely flirt with other people without there being any due cause for jealousy. But there IS due cause for jealousy in one spouse when the other spouse flirts with someone else, because the two spouses belong to each other. I own her body; she owns mine. That's in the New Testament. Marriage vows do have meaning.

If you disagree, how do you define marriage?


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 05 Apr 2012, 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alexender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194
Location: wrongplanet

05 Apr 2012, 11:00 am

As 2 men or 2 women that get married


_________________
www.wrongplanet.net


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 11:15 am

Ragtime wrote:
Alexender wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
No I am saying I disagree with someone in a relationship 'controlling' and even punishing the other one in the relationship if they do something perceived as 'wrong' by the other based on if they have a penis or a vagina.


Okay. Does that include when both people are for this kind of arrangement? She likes when I assert myself -- it is manly to her. It makes her feel both loved, and loving toward me. She grows cold and distant when I go for long periods without asserting myself and my will. There is, of course, a disrespectful way to be assertive, but there is also a respectful way, and she knows the difference. She is not asking for me to be a jerk -- nothing would turn her off faster. She is asking to powerfully feel my being her husband.


She just wants an owner


A certain extent of mutual ownership is part of marriage, otherwise both spouses could freely flirt with other people without there being any due cause for jealousy. But there IS due cause for jealousy in one spouse when the other spouse flirts with someone else, because the two spouses belong to each other. I own her body; she owns mine. That's in the New Testament. Marriage vows do have meaning.

If you disagree, how do you define marriage?


What, no people are not property.......part of being with someone is 'don't cheat on them' because you agreed to be in a relationship with them not someone else. Not because either party has 'ownership' of the other. If that was the way it worked I don't think divorce would be legal as if you're 'owned' you probably cannot choose to be un-owned.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

05 Apr 2012, 11:26 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
myth wrote:
The Christian model, when executed correctly, can work well for some people. There's always people who won't fit into any model and being forced into a dominiant or submissive role when you are not that way naturally is never fun. But if two people both willingly accept and understand their roles and feel comfortable in them, then I see nothing wrong with that.

There isn't anything inherintly wrong with hierarchy.


Well if both sides consent and are ok with it, I cannot tell them what to do......though I might question what sort of up-bringing taught them being punished & ruled over by a fellow 'adult' because they are your husband is a good and positive thing. Even if its not a hostility thing I still just cannot fathom how that would be healthy.


If I know economics and my wife does not, it does not make sense for her to have a major say in economics, just as if she is better than me at decorating it makes no sense for me to require full decision power in that department. Now, before Valentine and her crew chastise me to death for using stereotypical gender roles and LKL requires me to post specific statistics to prove things statistically that can't really be proven statistically, the reason I used those roles is that just about every man I've ever met who has lived with a woman has very little say in the decor of the house.



Last edited by TM on 05 Apr 2012, 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 11:26 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
What, no people are not property.......part of being with someone is 'don't cheat on them' because you agreed to be in a relationship with them not someone else. Not because either party has 'ownership' of the other. If that was the way it worked I don't think divorce would be legal as if you're 'owned' you probably cannot choose to be un-owned.


Would you like her to post about how she feels about it? She's a member on here, and has been for several years. She's been reading this conversation.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.