|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:41 pm
Norayr Cornetto1 This is the 21st century! We have emos, high rates of teen pregnancies and awful music. Come onnn, these are incredibly outdated standards and expectations. The line between male and female roles are blurring, BRILLIANT! Equality IS and always HAS BEEN a GOOD thing! I know the world is going to s**t, but at least it can go to s**t knowing that gays can marry and women can be in positions of authority. I never said though that the they're not equal. There a sort of mutual agreement here, that makes the relationship equal. Though I'm still struggling to figure out how it works. From the Bible (yea, I'm a Christian) Husbands love your wives as yourselves (equality) You're not going to put the woman over your head, and you're not going to Lord over them though you're the head of the family. Your entire argument has been based around inequality, sure diversity is great, but anything that restricts people *including religion* is inevitably a bad and unhealthy thing to do. No offence intended, but the bible is an incredibly outdated system of rules to follow... "Husbands love your wives as yourselves" like everything in any holy book can be interpreted in a variety of different ways, simply because of the overly flowery way they wrote back then confused It could mean that husbands should not just give all of their love to their wives, but should love themselves also, it could mean don't forget about your wives, it could mean don't get powermad and boss them around hell it could mean that husbands should pleasure their wives as well as themselves confused
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:43 pm
Cornetto1 By "what defines a man", do you mean a male? Or a human? Because practically all of these things apply to both genders... No, I mean Man. I've tried making the man absolute, while what you guys are making the man relative; I'm saying that a man has specific roles. This should make it more concrete and unique to the sexes. Most of you people are saying that the roles apply to both sexes making the specific roles more relative than anything. I want to know what you guys think makes a man, but we kinda went off of that to others. Which I do like. It's a great discussion we have. And I'm glad no one is putting down the other or their thoughts and what they have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:45 pm
Norayr GuruLazer Norayr They were subtle points, give me a second to go back and look over to shed some light on them. Here's the thing. Mothers have a lot easier time connecting to the offspring than the fathers do. This doesn't mean that the father is not going to invest time into their child. I commend fathers that do this, and I personally want as much time away from my work to spend with my family. I have priorities. These women that I mentioned earlier on chose to completely quite their jobs to connect with their child(ren). It's crazy how in Europe families that receive a newborn get so much time with them. I believe for about more than half a year, but over here, it's only a month or so. It's ridiculous! Plus in this fast paced world, one of them has to stay home for the kids, on has to work. Though there are alternatives like a nursery , day-care, grandparents, it's a good idea to have the person that cared for the child from however many months before birth to care for them a couple months/years after birth. Though again, I want to emphasis, that the male would contribute to the offspring as well. That is what makes a man. Helping with the family and bring up the child.The way you've described this bringing up of the child makes the father seem very distant. I'm not sure about other families, but in mine both parents had an equal hand at raising the children. I think prioritising is in order. A father in your desciption misses out a lot of their child's life while the mother stays home to care for him/her. Very well, he has a career and is a busy, busy guy. But won't he regret later in life when his children have all grown up and flown the nest not spending more time with them when they were growing up? If you can see this point and sympathise with it, then you must surely understand the pregnancy leave a woman has. She has an extra price to pay, her own body is undergoing changes to carry the child. Listen, in the end somebody has to work to pay the bills, if not both parents. What I'm saying is that the role of the housewife is no longer as relevant as it used to be, when a woman was tied to the kitchen by her apron strings. You've misunderstood me, if you think that I'm saying a man should stay away from the development of the family. I'm trying to stress that he has to be involved. I say he has to stay at work because even a week off is going to cause some hardship economically. I've seen this happen. Though at the same time, he NEEDs time with his family. Thus, I come back to the balance comment I made earlier on in the thread. Balance, you say? Find, then allow me to propose this situation. A woman with young children works the same hours as the husband, leaving enough funds to see the family happily through the week (at least) whilst spending a good amount of time with the children. This way, there is no bread winner as such, and neither parents has to compromise their job or their time with the family. It's not an outrageous suggestion. Some time off or shifted hours will not bring Judgement Day upon us, the parents can reach a solution with more flexible hours without a huge dent in the finances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:47 pm
GuruLazer Norayr Cornetto1 This is the 21st century! We have emos, high rates of teen pregnancies and awful music. Come onnn, these are incredibly outdated standards and expectations. The line between male and female roles are blurring, BRILLIANT! Equality IS and always HAS BEEN a GOOD thing! I know the world is going to s**t, but at least it can go to s**t knowing that gays can marry and women can be in positions of authority. I never said though that the they're not equal. There a sort of mutual agreement here, that makes the relationship equal. Though I'm still struggling to figure out how it works. From the Bible (yea, I'm a Christian) Husbands love your wives as yourselves (equality) You're not going to put the woman over your head, and you're not going to Lord over them though you're the head of the family. On the contrary, you did say the sexes are not equal the moment you stated that they must know their places as different sides of the species. Dress it however you want, the fact still remains that the relationship is wholly unequal when the woman has to reach a compromise to satisfy the male. It's all well and good saying love your wives as yourselves, but there's always going to be that overarching metanarrative of inequality when the women wait on the needs of the husband and put themselves second (third if there are children). No, I'm just regarding that they're unique and have specific things to do. You make it seem like I said black and white and claimed that they're not equal because black is better. At the same time though, the male is going to give something up in that compromise as well. Compromise comes with both parties giving something up. Otherwise you'll have a totalitarian relationship which is what it seems you're describing to me. Just letting you guys know I'm going to leave in a little while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:47 pm
You cannot define what makes a man and thank god that you cannot, it would be an incredibly mundane world where all men are muscular heroes and all women are pretty, petite damsels in distress
PLUS
where do gay people come into this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:49 pm
Norayr Cornetto1 By "what defines a man", do you mean a male? Or a human? Because practically all of these things apply to both genders... No, I mean Man. I've tried making the man absolute, while what you guys are making the man relative; I'm saying that a man has specific roles. This should make it more concrete and unique to the sexes. Most of you people are saying that the roles apply to both sexes making the specific roles more relative than anything. I want to know what you guys think makes a man, but we kinda went off of that to others. Which I do like. It's a great discussion we have. And I'm glad no one is putting down the other or their thoughts and what they have to say. There is no absolute, it's too diverse a topic. Man cannot be defined absolutely, just as woman cannot. Both can perform these supposed gender roles you refer to, there is no specific that only one can accomplish. A man is not physically incapable to wash his clothes; I don't remember any accounts of a washing machine blowing up upon contact with a man's touch. Either parent can be the breadwinner, either sex can be strong or smart. Nothing that one can do is impossible to the other (excluding the obvious biological one: childbirth).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:52 pm
First off, I don’t find men very attractive being I am a lesbian and all. But I think Men need to be in touch with there feminine side. I don’t thinking being strong is all that important, dependable yes, but I think if any one is going to be in your life as a partner or what not you would wont that person to be dependable I don’t see that as something just men should have. And I think guys now a days are great they are more sensitive then in the past, I find most of my friends are guys and I would trust them with my life. I do think a lot of guys try to hard to be like some one on TV, When they fully know that , that person is really not like that in real life. I come from a family with a father that did not now how to react to children when they just were LOL having a good time, He did not get it. Yea he was strong and dependable , but he lacked sensitivity and I think you will find that in a lot of the older man. Not all mind you . I find it very attractive if a guy was able or willing to stay home and take care of the kids while the mother went out to work. I love it when you see the young dads walking the kids now a days the are taking more part in there kids upbringing and I feel for the most party the guys around here any ways are ok. You have your jerks but they will always be there that will never change.
Please for give the bad grammar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:52 pm
Cornetto1 Norayr Cornetto1 This is the 21st century! We have emos, high rates of teen pregnancies and awful music. Come onnn, these are incredibly outdated standards and expectations. The line between male and female roles are blurring, BRILLIANT! Equality IS and always HAS BEEN a GOOD thing! I know the world is going to s**t, but at least it can go to s**t knowing that gays can marry and women can be in positions of authority. I never said though that the they're not equal. There a sort of mutual agreement here, that makes the relationship equal. Though I'm still struggling to figure out how it works. From the Bible (yea, I'm a Christian) Husbands love your wives as yourselves (equality) You're not going to put the woman over your head, and you're not going to Lord over them though you're the head of the family. Your entire argument has been based around inequality, sure diversity is great, but anything that restricts people *including religion* is inevitably a bad and unhealthy thing to do. No offence intended, but the bible is an incredibly outdated system of rules to follow... "Husbands love your wives as yourselves" like everything in any holy book can be interpreted in a variety of different ways, simply because of the overly flowery way they wrote back then confused It could mean that husbands should not just give all of their love to their wives, but should love themselves also, it could mean don't forget about your wives, it could mean don't get powermad and boss them around hell it could mean that husbands should pleasure their wives as well as themselves confused Have you heard of freedom through the law? Meaning that you can do much more by following rules than going about and breaking the law? I believe that the law is there to be followed, and it's the law that allows you to be free. Though some of the rules our government has is a bit questionable. Nowadays our interpretations are bound to screw up. Why? We've broadened every meaning, we've forgotten the true meaning of things, and we just want to please ourselves. Love, in a marriage relationship, would be self-sacrificial. Which would totally defeat what you mentioned up there. You put the other person before you, but you love them as yourself. Which would turn it around the other way, instead of having you being the ego hog and taming yourself to love. Though in many cases then, now, and later to come, I can almost say almost 100% will be like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:55 pm
Cornetto1 You cannot define what makes a man and thank god that you cannot, it would be an incredibly mundane world where all men are muscular heroes and all women are pretty, petite damsels in distress PLUS where do gay people come into this? Thank the lord we dont do that. That would be a world i would not wont to live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:59 pm
Cornetto1 You cannot define what makes a man and thank god that you cannot, it would be an incredibly mundane world where all men are muscular heroes and all women are pretty, petite damsels in distress PLUS where do gay people come into this? Actually, going off the Bible, we do have a standard, a mold to fill in, if you will. But that's what I believe, and I'm not going to force anything on to you. I'm just letting you know what I believe, and it's totally up to you to receive or reject completely or partially what I say. Gay men? I wouldn't know where to start, but I will if you want. Lets see. In a relationship like that, one male would assume the role of a woman. That defeats the purpose of the male. Then with two males, which is the head? Being homosexual in itself is considered a sin because it breaks the original formula for a male/female relationship. Though that in no way means that I'm bashing on any homosexual people. The people themselves I love as my brother/sister, it's the action of sexual preference that I don't condone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:01 pm
Norayr nikki stix Norayr That's ugly, and I'm so sorry you had to experience that. I hope you don't generalize now; hope he hasn't tarnished men in your eyes. Nope... hs just made me see that no matter how much you knwo a person, theres allways another side. He was the... no second person i liked after my god awful boyfriend. And thanks to him im like.. "yeah, boys? not too much... im.... uh.... *thinks hard* oh yeah im taken" this is the first time ive been single with no feelings for another in..... YEARS! gosh it feels good to be free and the jealous bug has been terminated I'm glad to hear that you don't feel you need a man to complete you. That's very good. Though do you feel you're still incomplete (not from a "I need a man" pov)? Just curious. I wouldnt say i feel incomplete. I just get lonely easier. And now, almsot 90% of my friends have boyfriends/girlfriends and i have to listen to their cuddling stories and it makes me miss having one. But i see it this way... Im leaving soon and i wont be back for a month, why start something now if i know i cant finish it. Besides when i get back i have college and all this stuff to think about. Having a boyfriend adds to it. And i know itd be easier for me if i had some one to basically "come home to" or vent to. Other than that i like being single, i dont have to worry about brandon trying to get me to cheat cuz he thinks he has me wrapped. and the stress of making sure no ones feelings are hurt. And im the masculine partner, i guess i can blame being a leo. But i wish i had some one who could basically "control" me as in, take care of me, and not the other way around. Only brandon has been able to do that, im so submisive with him its sad. But with any one else ive been with, its like im a dictator when i dont want to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:01 pm
Quote: Have you heard of freedom through the law? Meaning that you can do much more by following rules than going about and breaking the law? I believe that the law is there to be followed, and it's the law that allows you to be free. Though some of the rules our government has is a bit questionable. Nowadays our interpretations are bound to screw up. Why? We've broadened every meaning, we've forgotten the true meaning of things, and we just want to please ourselves. Love, in a marriage relationship, would be self-sacrificial. Which would totally defeat what you mentioned up there. You put the other person before you, but you love them as yourself. Which would turn it around the other way, instead of having you being the ego hog and taming yourself to love. Though in many cases then, now, and later to come, I can almost say almost 100% will be like that. Woah, slow down there. Freedom through the law is one thing, it's all fine and good to abide by the law. Who said anything about breaking the law? Some rules are logical to follow: the preservation of life, protecting the innocent, that all makes sense in order to function as a society. Broadening meanings does not limit us, it is knowing only one path which narrows our perspective. If we know every choice and path we can take we have the freedom to walk the right one. Not knowing the other paths is truly limiting. Take love, for example. Nowadays you can fall in love with a person and marry them, or you could simply live with them in a common law relationship, maybe just date them, divorce them if they're not the one, have a gay relationship. There are many choices which suit some and not others, and only they can make the choice which suits them. You can respect the person you love without making compromises, but accepting who they are and sharing responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:03 pm
Frazzled Panda First off, I don’t find men very attractive being I am a lesbian and all. But I think Men need to be in touch with there feminine side. I don’t thinking being strong is all that important, dependable yes, but I think if any one is going to be in your life as a partner or what not you would wont that person to be dependable I don’t see that as something just men should have. And I think guys now a days are great they are more sensitive then in the past, I find most of my friends are guys and I would trust them with my life. I do think a lot of guys try to hard to be like some one on TV, When they fully know that , that person is really not like that in real life. I come from a family with a father that did not now how to react to children when they just were LOL having a good time, He did not get it. Yea he was strong and dependable , but he lacked sensitivity and I think you will find that in a lot of the older man. Not all mind you . I find it very attractive if a guy was able or willing to stay home and take care of the kids while the mother went out to work. I love it when you see the young dads walking the kids now a days the are taking more part in there kids upbringing and I feel for the most party the guys around here any ways are ok. You have your jerks but they will always be there that will never change. Please for give the bad grammar Of course it good to have fathers that are more active in the lives of their children. I believe that makes a man all the more manly. And it's true that a man should be able to show emotions. It's necessary to do that. It's just that the media is just throwing out all these ideas that messes with the minds of everybody, and you have a whole collage of what a man should be. Hence the difference in our thoughts of what a man should be. I believe that there is a definition to this, but others are saying something otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:07 pm
nikki stix Norayr nikki stix Norayr That's ugly, and I'm so sorry you had to experience that. I hope you don't generalize now; hope he hasn't tarnished men in your eyes. Nope... hs just made me see that no matter how much you knwo a person, theres allways another side. He was the... no second person i liked after my god awful boyfriend. And thanks to him im like.. "yeah, boys? not too much... im.... uh.... *thinks hard* oh yeah im taken" this is the first time ive been single with no feelings for another in..... YEARS! gosh it feels good to be free and the jealous bug has been terminated I'm glad to hear that you don't feel you need a man to complete you. That's very good. Though do you feel you're still incomplete (not from a "I need a man" pov)? Just curious. I wouldnt say i feel incomplete. I just get lonely easier. And now, almsot 90% of my friends have boyfriends/girlfriends and i have to listen to their cuddling stories and it makes me miss having one. But i see it this way... Im leaving soon and i wont be back for a month, why start something now if i know i cant finish it. Besides when i get back i have college and all this stuff to think about. Having a boyfriend adds to it. And i know itd be easier for me if i had some one to basically "come home to" or vent to. Other than that i like being single, i dont have to worry about brandon trying to get me to cheat cuz he thinks he has me wrapped. and the stress of making sure no ones feelings are hurt. And im the masculine partner, i guess i can blame being a leo. But i wish i had some one who could basically "control" me as in, take care of me, and not the other way around. Only brandon has been able to do that, im so submisive with him its sad. But with any one else ive been with, its like im a dictator when i dont want to be. And with the taking care of you, and him being in control, don't you think he'd be fair in that where he'll treat you as an equal instead of a subordinate? By the way, I do believe that an SO takes up a lot of time and effort, so I've been walking the single road as well. That last relationship was a bit crazy. It's why I've been making the effort of being more the man that I've defined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:08 pm
It's odd, but I may actually be one of the only people who agree with you on this. I do not think you were trying to be demeaning in any way and I support your arguments that man should be able to do those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
