[QUOTE=spakesneaker;443881]also i really don't think we can consider oprah or joy behar 'feminazis,' lol. a lot of people find them annoying, but they're certainly not extreme in their political thinking.[/QUOTE]
i didn't mean to imply that they're feminazis, just that they contribute to the problem. anyone who's interested in a discussion on how radical feminism is altering our culture and harming our sons should read "WHO STOLE FEMINISM" by Christina Hoff Sommers. it's a little dated, i think it was written in the late 90s, but it's still very relevant.
[QUOTE=Pandadude;443888]I don't think you can differentiate about an angry face being a "clue" or a "warning" either, at least I understand them to be identical.[/QUOTE]
you're right. bad example. but the emotion is there whether or not a person expresses it, and the expression gives others a clue about what's going on inside. many choose to use their emotional expressions to manipulate others, but that's not always the case.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;443956]Wow. If men are getting their idea about how women think from shows such as Oprah and The View, they must be getting a seriously twisted perspective. There are a lot of real women out there who think such shows are a waste of time and who find listening to such catty bitchiness annoying as all hell. Myself included.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=tfarny;444084]This thread was cool about 70 pages back. Most thorough derail ever. I'm going to post in one of the menses threads about bow hunting and Karl Marx now, see ya later. Sheesh.[/QUOTE]
cool. but why karl marx?
[QUOTE=Rivvin;444120]I can't help it, anything my fingers touch explodes.
... Hey Ladies ;)
edit: yes, I have literally jumped into this thread again just to be a douchebag. That's how I roll. ALPHA MALE OUT.[/QUOTE]
lol, thanks for the release.
[QUOTE=Grumpy Caveman;444154]True, in a way. It is a matter of morality because only an amoral society would allow two very different genders to be considered equal; a society whose government is given the power to wring all of the time and energy it can from its citizens as though they were sexless machines. A moral society understands the differences between the sexes and how each is valuable in certain ways and better suited for certain things. Apples and oranges are not equal.[/QUOTE]
as if these changes originated within the government? a true republic responds to the demands of its citizens, and that's what happened with the gov't (in the US at least). imo, the gov't has no place in discussions about what men and women should and shouldn't do, except to remove any laws that prevent men and women from making their own decisions about gender roles. what you're talking about is way too totalitarian for my taste.
[QUOTE=Arikara6;444160]At this risk of coming across as inflammatory, I tend to agree with this. There was an article in the Army Times about 4 weeks ago about women in the Infantry. I am pretty vehemently opposed to women serving in combat arms.[/QUOTE]
there's a HUGE difference between "equality" in the armed forces and in civilian life.
[QUOTE=Chaohinon;444234]Equality is best understood as equality of authority/opportunity, not equality of having certain stuff.[/QUOTE]
thanks for speaking up. i'm rapidly losing respect for many of the people commenting in this thread.
[QUOTE=spakesneaker;444254]I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think it has troubling implications to say that they have different roles; even if men and women are still generally better suited to different roles biologically, there's no reason for them to be obligated to carry out those roles if they're not interested in doing so since we're not living in the same environment as Grok or Grokette where the main purpose of life is simply survival. It's like the difference between saying that men are more math- and science-oriented (which I will take as true) versus saying that women shouldn't go into math/science/engineering/technology professions because their brains aren't the same as men's brains. a) that's a generality, and b) wtf. I don't think you would say that women's opportunities should be limited, but I thought that's what you were implying in saying that government sees people as sexless cogs in the machine.
I think the area in which women suffer a ton is from the insistence that 'men and women should be treated equally under the law' has turned into 'therefore men and women are the same even in interpersonal relationships,' which is something clearly untrue. a lot of girls therefore go through this whole 'hook-up' culture thing and suffer emotionally from it as a result. I know a lot of guys would be like 'boo hoo she's getting male attention,' but it's kind of the converse of how men are being taught to repress their masculinity. (again, speaking in generalities, I know there are women out there who don't want to settle down and are perfectly fine with no strings attached-type relationships)[/QUOTE]
i wholeheartedly agree. there is a difference between the general/average capabilities of a gender and what gender roles *should* be. there will always be outliers in any group, and it's really not anyone's business to limit the options of those outliers.
[QUOTE=canio6;444280]So 1.5 million in the armed forces and 2200 sexual assaults. How does that compare to the general population? Also, more likely to be raped than killed in Iraq/Afghanistan? No shit. Besides some MPs and maybe a handful of medics, what women go outside the wire? Also I would say that female soldiers are more likely to report a rape than their civilian counterparts. Why? Because every woman I met in the military was very forthcoming and not at all shy. There are also several avenues to report a sexual assault which soldiers are trained on quarterly. Also they can be reported confidentially and without repercussions.
As for Jane Harmon, it wouldn't do her political career any good to say, "Sexual Assaults in the Military, yeah, lets see how they compare to the civilian world." Jaw dropping makes for a better headline.[/QUOTE]
that's speculation. we could also speculate that women in the military feel the pressure to be "just like the guys" and thus are significantly LESS likely to report a rape. either way, it's speculation and we can only use the DATA that we have.
[QUOTE=Grumpy Caveman;444328]"Obligation" is becoming a dirty word these days, anyway. Like "discipline" and "patience." We're in the midst of a great social experiment that I don't think has ever come along before at this magnitude.[/QUOTE]
you're deluding yourself if you think there's anything special about our generation. technologies change, social mores change, those are really the only constants. sometimes change comes quickly, and sometimes it takes millenia. either way, change is always occurring. hence, no matter when a person was born, they are in the midst of some grand social experiment.
[QUOTE]We have the resources and the technology to manipulate those resources to such a degree that, yes, the traditional roles of men and women are becoming obsolete, at least on the surface of things. But those traditional roles have been in place since before humans were humans. There is some serious neural hardwiring going on that a few decades can't possibly undo.[/QUOTE]
specifically, to which traditional roles are you referring? H/G groups were highly egalitarian. most cultures have had defined roles for men and women, but those roles varied to a great extent between cultures. in some cultures, cooking is a man's task. in others, men would rather starve than cook for themselves. think about a more Hebraic culture. women were constantly out of the home, tending gardens, trading at the markets, working at the loom. men spent most of their day at the synagogue learning. they had almost no economic significance to the family; the burden was on the wife.
[QUOTE]I may have mentioned before that I don't know of too many happy marriages, but the ones I do know of invariably have a strong leader and able provider doing a job he loves as the husband, and a home-loving nurturer as the wife (and they have three or four kids). The majority of the unhappy marriages I know of have both partners working, and the man unable to satisfy the woman mentally or sexually (usually because he is so damn overworked, but in one case he's just an ass). [/QUOTE]
when there are kids in the house and two parents working, it's likely that everyone will be stressed. some people make this work, most can't. it's usually the woman who stays home, but it's becoming more common for the man to do this. my husband has more earning potential, so we decided that i would stay home. it's also easier for women to DUE TO OUR CULTURE, but that doesn't mean that the woman SHOULD.
[QUOTE=huntergirlhayden;444375]I personally prescribe to my own watered down version of this in my relationships and have had success. [/QUOTE]
what do you define as "success"?
[QUOTE]I realize it might seem archaic to most women, probably horrifying, but I have found I garner far more respect from a man when I acknowledge our differences; my weaknesses and his strengths, and instead of trying to overcompensate or make him feel bad for being stronger than me, let him be stronger. In turn, he respects my strengths in other areas and lets me help him there without ever feeling like I'm belittling him. The balance that is so often lacking in relationships is easy to find, it happens when a woman embraces being a woman and stops trying to be a man and when a man embraces being a man and stops apologizing for not being a woman. I'm not going to get mad at a guy I'm dating for not having the same emotional reaction to something as I do, if I want a females opinion, I'll call my mother. I guess I'm a brainwashed fool because I want to be a girl and to be treated as something that you need to be a little more gentle with and should be cherished.I'm not fragile, I'm not weak, and I'm not lazy, but you can carry the firewood inside for me,you can open the door for me,you can even reach something on the top shelf so I don't have to get a step stool and climb, I find no insult in it. I know men are perfectly capable of cooking and keeping house, but it comes naturally to me, I find joy in doing it, so I'd rather do that. Just like I'm sure some guys would rather chop down a tree then make a decorative edge on a pie crust. More power to you if you like a crumb topping, I like chopping wood, but I'm sure not as fast at it as my SO.[/QUOTE]
do you have kids? are you keeping a household? i have been raising kids at home, "tending the hearth" for almost a decade. please come back once you've had that experience and say it's all peachy-keen. gender inequality doesn't matter quite so much when it's novel and optional (trust me, i've been in your shoes with your attitude), but when your livelihood is dependent on another person because you're taking care of the children, it's a whole 'nother ballgame.
I completely respect what you're saying about how children change the dynamic of a relationship. I do not have children of my own so I can't say how that would effect this approach to relationships for me, but I know that it has worked in helping to establish respect and trust. That was what I was referring to when I wrote about that. Just an observation, while you depend on your SO for your livelihood, he depends on you to run the household and "keep the hearth" so obviously ya'll have come to a point of mutual respect and realization of strengths. I don't know your situation and I may be out of line for saying that.
I have kept a house and been dependent on a man to provide for me, in retrospect it seems even more tenuous of an arrangement because I wasn't raising children, I was simply maintaining a homestead (small house,rabbits,garden and pets,) which is a contribution, but far less a demanding one than also raising babies. I'm not sure I understand where your irritation with my statements stems from. Perhaps the context in which I made them wasn't made clear. I was referring to those behaviors, submission as it were, as a way of building solid respect in a relationship. It's about mutual submission, not just on the part of the female.
[B]SEX[/B], GUNS, [B]SEX[/B], BEER, [B]SEX[/B], FARTING, [B]SEX[/B], TITS, [B]SEX[/B], ASS, [B]SEX[/B], BREAKING THINGS, [B]SEX[/B], BIG PICKUPS.
Just trying to bring the thread back on track to talking about guy things.
I'm just disappointed we never talked about STD's and only briefly mentioned politics.[/QUOTE]
Well...I had a left leaning girlfriend with a recurring cold sore once if that helps...
[QUOTE=texas.grok;444417][B]SEX[/B], GUNS, [B]SEX[/B], BEER, [B]SEX[/B], FARTING, [B]SEX[/B], TITS, [B]SEX[/B], ASS, [B]SEX[/B], BREAKING THINGS, [B]SEX[/B], BIG PICKUPS.
Just trying to bring the thread back on track to talking about guy things.[/QUOTE]
I like porn. (amateur mostly..)
[QUOTE=Dave_o;444422]Well...I had a left leaning girlfriend with a recurring cold sore once if that helps...[/QUOTE]
We've done it all, now it can be over!
[QUOTE=Dave_o;444423]I like porn. (amateur mostly..)[/QUOTE]
I do like my porn. Amateur is good but I'll watch almost any of it. Miss the old porn stars, Marylin Chambers, Seka, Vanessa Del Rio....
I have kept a house and been dependent on a man to provide for me, in retrospect it seems even more tenuous of an arrangement because I wasn't raising children, I was simply maintaining a homestead (small house,rabbits,garden and pets,) which is a contribution, but far less a demanding one than also raising babies. I'm not sure I understand where your irritation with my statements stems from. Perhaps the context in which I made them wasn't made clear. I was referring to those behaviors, submission as it were, as a way of building solid respect in a relationship. It's about mutual submission, not just on the part of the female.[/QUOTE]
submission becomes much more real when you actually are totally dependent on someone. i appreciate your experience raising rabbits, but that's really night and day. i'm guessing you were raising them for food?
i am wondering what you consider "success" and why you consider that you have had it. i know tones are difficult to convey in type, so please understand that i'm not trying to be a bitch here, i only want to define terms.
from my perspective, "success" in a relationship means raising children to become intelligent, contributing citizens (assuming that both people wanted children), and doing so in a manner that leaves both members with a reasonable degree of satisfaction. i have not reached success, it is almost a decade in the making and still has at least 2 decades to go before i can kick up my heels and consider my marriage a "success". that's my definition. the reason why this is pertinent is because i know that if i remained in the subservient role that i idealized, i would hurt my chances of reaching "success." i was wise enough to see that would result in ungrateful, spoiled children, an uninterested husband, and a mean, spiteful woman. that's what submission would have meant for my family, as my husband's expectations were unrealistic and archaic. part of my point here is that submission may appear to work in the short-term, but in my experience it doesn't hold up in the long-term. also, there are too many outliers when it comes to personalities to make generalizations as to how marriage "works."
i also find it interesting that most of the people commenting are (it seems) unmarried and without kids, but are commenting on "traditional" gender roles. in a traditional gender role, what purpose does a woman have but to rear children and tend the hearth? are you willing to give up the freedom you have to play that role?
[B][U]For the men only![/U][/B]
What kind of manly man music do you like? For me I'm into Five Finger Death Punch (5FDP), Eluveitie (makes me want to throw on a kilt and kill something), Rammstein, pretty much all the heavy stuff, in particular, industrial metal.
I'm always looking for new music so what do you like?
First man that says M. Jackson, Culture Club or Justin Bieber, I will attempt to virtually bitch slap you through the internet! :)