cheetah

I coudn't agree more!

yguy

Perhaps you could provide me with a non-circular argument for either the woman as head of household or an equal partnership. The only arguments I've ever heard amount to, "Why should the man be in charge?"

Isn't the increase in gender confusion a compelling reason to re-examine the abolition of traditional marriage? Would you want your daughter to have a choice between dating a guy who looked like Michael Jackson and one who looked like Tim Curry?

Inevitably, if you dissect anyone's logic enough, they will get to a point where their only answer is, "It's self-evident". This is a difficult thing to approach directly. It seems like I have to talk all around it and up to it, in the hope that the light will go on for somebody.

However, I'll give it a try. When Eve tempted Adam with the forbidden fruit, he had the opportunity to say, "Hey, knock that off. Dad said not to mess with that", but wanting to feel like a god, he submitted himself to her authority (as Abraham did to Sarah's in the matter of Hagar). This is evidenced by the fact that when God called them on it, he blamed Eve. I don't guess there's a woman alive who can't identify with that. And men have been making this mistake for millenia.

The man's need for the woman's love tends to be addictive, meaning that the man can't speak up to her any more than the junkie can speak up to his pusher. Children can't have respect for a man like that...and neither can the woman. Of course, if the woman enjoys the contempt, there's no immediate problem; it doesn't surface until her contempt becomes so obvious that the children see it, at which point they tend to resent the dad's status as a loser. That makes a boy lose respect for his own masculinity, and a girl lose respect for whatever masculinity she finds in other men.

I didn't escape it entirely, but I did have a male role model or two once I left home. But for that, I shudder to think how I would have ended up.

In general though, all men have a trace of gender confusion. The biggest, baddest Green Beret you ever saw spent 9 months inside his mother, sharing her bodily fluids, perhaps to some degree sharing her emotions. No way he doesn't have a little of mommy in him. Funny thing is, when he gets to puberty, part of him wants to go back where he came from.

cheetah

Well, when you make a positive assertion like that, you have to give some reason for it! That's what we are all awaiting with bated breath. Instead all we get is, "Because that's what makes sense to me!" Which is just plain inadequate. I mean, if you are just trying to get your opinion across, fine. But, if you are actually trying to have a discussion in which you are attempting to make sense of your views to someone else and perhaps even convince that person, you have to show the logical steps of how you arrived at those views yourself. You continuing to say, "It makes sense to me! It's obvious to me!" only shows us your opinion, not how you got to your opinion. Opinions are fun only for a short while, whereas the arrival at an opinion can be a topic of discussion that keeps everyone interested for a long time. Instead, we continue going around in circles...

Daleth

I'm just going to reply to this bit for the moment.

I'm not making an absolute argument for any system, and condemning all others as everything from unhealthy to bringing about the downfall of a nation. At no time will you see me say that you and your present or future spouse should not structure your relationship in the way that works best for you. I don't like that structure. It makes me cringe. It's not for me. But that doesn't mean it's not for you.

Since you are the one advocating a way of life that you think should be applied to everyone lest we all be doomed, the burden of proof is on you. I'd expect the same proof of someone who said a wife-headed marriage or an equal partnership or a single parent family or a democratic family was necessary for the well being of children and society overall.

You don't need evidence that other forms of families can produce healthy kids unless you consider yourself unhealthy.

Dal

Calzaer

yguy:

Why are you the only one who gets to assume facts-not-in-evidence?

Jinto

Amazingly, you have yet to answer this question.

A claim that is not substantiated by any evidence is absolutely not a reason to examine the possibility of re-implementing gender discrimination in families. And I absolutely would not want my daughter's choices for marriage to be limited to ONLY two people, nor would I want her choices of marriage to be limited only to guys.

There is a difference between the self-evidence of 1 + 1 = 2 and the "self-evidence" of dianetics. One is actually self-evident, the other is simply unsubstantiated. Your claims fall into the latter category.

Hahaha... oh wait, you're serious. Let's see... you're seriously going to suggest that we should grant man "natural authority" over women because of an ancient Hebrew myth written by sexist pigs, or, for those who actually believe this crap... because Adam obeyed the suggestion (NOT order) of someone else, and that the error was obeying a woman was evidenced by the fact that God punished the woman more heavily, and alternate explanations of this event, such as God being a mysoginist and unjust pig, or simply having made a mistake, or that this was meant to be a sign not to obey suggestions from other humans in general, or that God finds inspiring others to sin worse than the sin itself - all of these other interpretations must be wrong... because yguy says they are. Is that it?

In other words, guys shouldn't take orders from women because that wouldn't be masculine. Wow... that made no sense. Please, if you're going to use idiotic reasoning, then don't obfuscate it behind excessively verbose language. State it plainly, that we may mock it easily.

Ah... so a male role model outside the family provides enough of an influence to avoid gender confusion... you DO realize that you've just destroyed your whole argument, right?

Yada yada yada... so in other words, being big, tough and insensitive is masculine, and and trace of other traits (which I presume you would think feminine) is a sign of "gender confusion," and should be avoided at all costs. Granted, this is reading between the lines somewhat, but that's really the only way I can make ANY sense out of this. So please, correct my interpretation, because I should hate to think that your viewpoint is so utterly 19th century.

yguy

Only if the teachers stand still, and don't grow.

winstonjen

No, sometimes students grow at a greater rate than their teachers, and can end up surpassing teachers that grow as well.

Also, yguy, if the wife was equal to the man in every non-biological way, how could you honestly, objectively determine that the husband should be in charge.

Dr Rick

Try telling that to Stephen Hawking's teachers, or for that matter mine; I've surpassed many of my grade-school teachers, but I would never accuse them of "standing still" on that basis, alone.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by winstonjen
No, sometimes students grow at a greater rate than their teachers, and can end up surpassing teachers that grow as well.

Perhaps this would go against the natural authority of teachers, not to mention everyone's intuitive knowledge, assuming it hadn't been bred out of them by centuries of cannibalism.