|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 19, @08:19PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The concept of marriage is based upon patriarchy.
Without laws that protect a patriarchical concept in marriage,marriage can not be a rewarding,peaceful, and and productive relationship for males.
Rather, modern laws,modern religious practices, and modern culture have promulgated a matriarchical concept for marriage which has destroyed any reasonable prospect for a rewarding,peaceful,and productive relationship by males with females in the institution of marriage with the resulting dramatic increase in the divorce rate,decreases in the marital rate,dramatic increases in unwed mothers, and general break down of the ethical concept in society that a social contract exists amongst all it's members the same being requisite for a society to survive,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 19, @09:51PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think marriage is based upon mutual sacrifice and that the "submission" of women isn't necessary for a marriage to last. I do agree that the women's movement has turned the tide so much that women don't expect to make compromises any more and so men are the only ones that sacrifice and when they get fed up, the marriage is on its last legs.
A good marriage should be neither patriarchal or matriarchal. It should go beyond either and not be made in terms of submission or domination.
(I'm a man and I'm happily married. Although the fantasy of a submissive wife is nice from time to time, I wouldn't enjoy it in the long term.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymi (Anon-amis),
Everything social unit must have a head, someone who speaks and gives direction to the whole;
this country has a president, the family has a father. If there were no head, or more than one head,
this would lend itself to anarchy, internal dissension, and social disintegration. As citizens submit
to their political leadership, so should a wife submit to her husband.
This submission does not mean that the person is powerless or being treated unfairly. We are allowed
to choose our president, the wife gets to choose her husband. The wife is in the better position as she
has someone specifically picked to serve her interests while the citizen may be stuck with a leader they
did not vote for and who does not represent their interests. The wife is also in a better position to ensure
compliance; she can divorce her husband at any time while citizens may have to wait four years for relief
after they realize they have been swindled. Furthermore, a wife has such an array of talents and charms to
influence her husband, that if I began a colorful enumeration, I wouldn't know where to stop.
If you have simply to much time to kill while waiting for the next Laker victory, you can go to:
www.jps.net/tpoll/home.htm and begin reading under "ARTICLES" for some more of my thoughts.
Tom Pollock (nom de guerre - Spartacus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 20, @01:14PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
i disagree. the initial assumption that any successful social group must have a single head is incorrect. there have been several environments which i have personally experienced in which decision making is done on consensus, majority, or in some cases individual action (by which i mean the topic is discussed, everyone then does what they believe is right).
to thus assume that for a family to be successful there must be a dominant leader is also incorrect. i for one would not be comfortable in a relationship, marrige or whatnot in which i were dominate (or submissive for that matter).
i disagree with existing gender stereotypes and their imposed gender roles. to each their own i suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. User,
You disagree a lot but draw base your statements on what "i have personally experienced".
As a matter of fact, I can't help but not notice how often you use "i" to attempt to validate
your claims. You say "i disagree" and then say "is incorrect" as if there is no distinction
between what you believe or "feel" and objective truth. After a couple of assertions of
implied infallibility you conclude with "to each their own i suppose" which sounds rather
vague and weak. And then (pardon the intrusion) I notice how you use the words "dominate"
and "submissive" in describing personal relationships and how you seemed to be more bothered
with being dominant then being submissive. You "disagree with existing gender stereotypes", but
does that mean you think men should be allowed to behave in stereotypical female fashion and
women behave like men - which is the feminist position, or that people should be allowed to
arbitrarily invent their own roles, which lends itself to anarchy if not nihilism.
In the 1960's the feminists attacked what was left of our patriarchal structures, which were based
on the self-denying principle of reason (morality, justice, etc.) by promoting self interest -
hence we had the "Me Generation." They also sought to emasculate the male population so
we could not stand up to them. I have to point out how your statements seem to fit the feminist and
"liberal" agenda to a T. It would explain why you operate under "Anonymous" even though you say
nothing here which would give reason to the powers that be to want to retaliate against you (I say
nothing of your use of a small "i"). Yes of course that is "your" decision, but there are men involved
in the movement that risk their livelihoods by their bold statements yet, in manly fashion, still sign their
statements with their real names. Again, I don't wish to personal, but in the manner of the opposite
sex your statements are so personal that it it is hard not to be personal. It is this personal orientation which
causes people to see things as "dominance" and "submission" in the sense that one a person arbitrarily or self
interestedly imposes their will on another. This being distasteful, they advocate excessive freedom because
they do not sufficiently recognize the organizing, yet disinterested principle of reason. The idea that people
could be free from all moral or legal restraint is absurd, and those in the 1960's that were sucked in by "free love"
were living in a fool's paradise (as if women were going to give it away for free.) What happened was that
by destroying modesty, fidelity, etc. they unleashed the sexual power of women to be used as a personal
weapon against men, hence we have the revolting situation today where a man will pay a dominatrix to be her slave.
You speak of consensus and majority rule; who is to impose the rule on the minority who disagrees with the majority?
Or do the minority break off and form their own group? I think everyone is familiar with the informal decision
making of a small group, how adults of similar competence can all offer help in a decision. I think most of us
know about "separation of powers", "specialization of function", and a host of other concepts to lengthy to discuss
here. I will simply say that different environments allow for different types of decision making, but still a committee has
but one chairman, a corporation one CEO, and our country one president, and not without a reason. A husband consults
his wife on serious matters relating to the family, ways her opinion depending on the extent of her knowledge and abilities,
and then decides. If her reasoning is not particularly good he consults her feelings - as with the children, and addresses
them in his decision making. Lesser family matters he may leave to his wife's disposal.
Tom Pollock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 21, @12:45PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps i should clarify my previous post. by no means did i mean to suggest that domination by the female in a heterosexual relationship is benificial. on that same note, i don't believe that domination by the male is either. "people should be allowed to arbitrarily invent their own roles" is something that i agree with. you say that this will result in anarchy. i believe we disagree on whether this would be a good thing or not.
i find that our main disagreement here is not in gender roles or whatnot, but in political structure theory. and that, my friend, is a topic for another forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience in dealing with collections of people assembled to solve a given problem, I have dealt with family groups, volunteer groups, and professional groups. The one thing I consistently find is that one person emerges as the major driving force who has, at the conclusion, every right to claim some major fraction of the credit for the fruition of the task. Usually it's a man, though I've seen, and am more than happy to work with, women who take such a role. It occurs to me, after all I've read on men as leaders and the characteristics of men as risk-takers, that it's more natural for men to step forward and lead. After all, there is risk associated with standing up in front of a group and asking to be followed: such an offer could easily be rejected. Women, as seems indicated by the applicable research, are more reticent to take such a risk, but certainly are no less capable. I've found it exceedingly rare that a group truly leads through consensus. It takes a certain chemistry for this to work and I suggest that the occurrance of this mixture is so rare that it's almost less productive to force it to happen. The same thing happens in marriage. One party or the other automatically emerges as a leader. Sometimes, and because married couples encounter so many different forums as they meet and marry, bear children and raise them to adulthood, and finally settle into retirement, leadership changes depending on the topic. Many times, one emerges as the leader and remains so throughout the marriage. So, while it's true that there is no REQUIREMENT for a dominant leader to emerge and to be served unquestioningly, the emergence of a leader is the norm, even in marriage.
Women (or men, for that matter) who allow themselves to be convinced that to be led is to be dominated is to be oppressed usually find themselves leading from behind. Regardless of who is dominant and who is submissive, this is troublesome because at some point the natural leader feels at first as though his (her) leadership is validated but then that it is being undermined.
Usually, there will be a leader, and usually, it will be the man, though it doesn't have to be. Most of the women who find themselves in the submissive role and who are rebeling against this are only doing so because they are being told by the feminists that they ought to. There's nothing wrong with a man choosing to follow; there's nothing wrong with a woman making the same choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... if that's even possible.
A quote from the article that wasn't given any special emphasis but should have been: "But the use of the word 'bitch' has more negative connotations than 'bastard.'" It jumped right out at me. Think of this: one ad says, "Dump the bitch." The other ad says, "All men are bastards." So, one ad indicates that there is at least one woman out there who isn't very nice, and calls her a derogatory name. The other ad says that all men aren't very nice. What does the feminist interviewed say? Oh, the women got the worst end of this one.
This is why we need male activism. The writer didn't even notice the blatant sexism in this quote... it was just tossed in the article as a reaction.
As for the whole lawyer ads thing. I decided long ago that lawyers were right up there with politicians and used car salesmen. Not that this means that any particular lawyer I chance to meet will be scum, but as a collective them seem to leave slime wherever they go....
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
