Calzaer

I think you inserted a couple extreneous words there. You meant to say:

Anyway.. isn't it interesting how these next two quotes relate...


I think he's pretty much proven himself to be an idiot, thus we should end this right now.

Yguy:

Re: "intuition", Re: "destruction of families", Re: "Kids in a family where the mother is in the lead are going to be fucked up"

PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
When she marries him.

Then why does he not automatically grant her the right to make the final decision when he marries her?

What way are we talking about? Not having a Mercedes? Hey, she can leave him for that sort of reason, but the dad should keep the kids.

I thought you said fathers weren't that good at mothering?

Judging by the increasing preponderance of such arrangements since the 70's, coupled with the concurrent increase in disintegration of families, I think that would be a no.

Is there any evidence that women heading families causes such families to disintegrate or is this a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

She's supposed to speak her mind and then let him lead, IMO.

This does not answer my question, "Why does the husband automatically know better than the wife does?"

Men aren't good at mothering.

Women aren't good at taking orders. There, one unsupported generalization deserves another.

Nobody. They both have to have an intuitive knowledge of what's right.

Why do they both have to have it? According to your reasoning, wouldn't it be enough if just the husband has it, since he's the one who's going to make the decisions?

As long as it isn't something that will maim the kid for life, she should speak her mind and stand aside - and withhold sexual favors.

Why should she do this? Isn't it a rebellion against the man's natural authority if she refuses to sleep with him?

So? If they "share" the decision and screw up, the same thing happens. The only difference is they get to blame each other for the screwup.

Perhaps sharing the decision might lead to fewer screwups. And perhaps couples who are mature enough to share decisions are also mature enough to realize that blaming each other is not the best solution.

Either way, your reply does not address my point : "Are there cases where bad decisions can affect the entire family? If so, then the entire family is bearing the consequences of these bad decisions, not just the man. In other words, his having the final decision is detrimental towards others, not only himself."

No, they should pack up and leave.

Good, now that we've established what the wife and kids should do if the man is bad, how do they know when he is bad? Do they rely on their "intuitive knowledge"? How do they know they are doing a reasonable thing, rather than simply rebelling against his natural authority?

The logic here escapes me.

Don't worry, I felt the same way about your analogy.

I don't bond emotionally with a president the way families do with each other.

All the more reason why the analogy was a weak one.

I've told you why I think it is. If it doesn't make sense to you, I guess we can't connect on this one.

If it doesn't make sense to me, it probably wasn't that sensible an analogy in the first place. You could always try throwing the question out to the board and asking if the President's relationship to the citizens of a country is analogous to a husband's relationship to a wife. And as long as the President is Clinton and the citizen is Lewinsky, you might have a point.

Get him to delegate authority? If he delegates authority, who's in charge? He is, of course.

Delegation of authority means that there are some matters over which she should have a say - unless the husband is a tiresome micromanager who insists on knowing exactly what she's doing and having the final say on everything.

If he has any brains, he'll know when she knows better than he does.

If he has any brains, he'll respect her competence and recognize when she deserves to be in charge.

Congress is not responsible for the adjudicating the law, and the Judiciary is not responsible for writing it.

Similarly, in my parents' marriage, my dad was not responsible for correcting us and my mom was not responsible for handing out allowances.

Who "gets" to make the final decision? Is this a privilege in your mind? Why is it not a responsibility instead?

As Spider-Man said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Come on now. Can't you see whom you consider intelligent on this board without knowing anybody's IQ?

This does not answer my question, "Then how do you propose that intelligent women seek out and find more intelligent men so that these men can wield more authority in the marriage than the women do?"

It's his responsibility to get the ship back on course if she steers it awry, yes. His alternative is to blame her, it would seem.

Another alternative is to show her how to steer the ship correctly, it would seem.

When they get married.

This must be when the husband also implicitly agreed that her qualifications were sufficient for her to run the family.

If there was a long enough engagement, as there should be, it is obvious that she has, barring either extrordinary powers of deception on his part or extrordinary stupidity on hers.

How long an engagement do you consider long enough for the woman to have done this? Moreover, this still doesn't answer my question : "And if it's implicit agreement, something not overtly and frankly stated, how do you know that she has agreed to this?"

Maybe it's "obvious" to you, but it's not "obvious" to me that this has happened. Please show how such an implicit agreement takes place and how you know that it happens.

Otherwise I suppose there is no such agreement. Too bad for both parties.

Not really; I've never liked implicit agreements. It's better to state things openly and directly.

For the same reason the President does. As he earns the authority by the consent of the electorate, the husband earns it by the wife's consent. I guess I'm just repeating myself here, but I don't really understand the objection.

The president has gone through a lot of training, preparation and obstacles in order to reach his position, thereby qualifying him at least somewhat for it. What training has the husband undergone in order to qualify him to tell his wife what to do? Is the only required qualification one of "implicit agreement" that he should be the boss?

If it's not corrective, it's not love. I know that isn't a very touchy-feely definition of love, but we are awash in the other kind of love, and it's killing the country.

I'm sure you enjoy the digression, but you have not answered my question, "Please provide evidence for your assertion that a father's love is always corrective." Perhaps you have no such evidence and are merely defining concepts as you see fit?

She should, if the opportunity arises.

Wouldn't this be an usurpation of the man's natural authority, possibly resulting in the woman's getting sent to bed without supper?

The way you phrase it makes it seem as though the woman should be girly rather than womanly. Not what I'm advocating.

The way you phrase it, I can see no other option for a woman.

Moreover, you have failed to answer the question, "Do you think that, by getting married, women implicitly agree that their husband will behave in a daddylike way towards them in order to make them better people?"

If you think I'm an idiot, do us both a favor: end this right now.

Do us both a favor? It wouldn't be a favor to me; it's too much fun.

They are based on my observations of the relationships I see around me.

Have you considered the fact that they might be very dysfunctional relationships?

Some will, some won't. God help the children of those who will.

Yes, he should help them to be just as strong as their mothers were.

They're born with it, though it takes a few years for them to be able to appreciate the knowledge.

How are they born with it? Are these memories transmitted genetically? If so, are they inherited equally from both the mother and the father? How many years does it take the children to be able to appreciate the knowledge?

If my theory that intuition is bred out of them is correct, that would be a no.

In other words, according to your theory, when intuition about cannibalism goes, intuition about the gender roles appropriate to you also goes?

Whatever else you may think of Donald Rumsfeld, he is nothing if not assertive. I have no doubt Bush likes it that way, even though the Presidency is a superior position to that of Secretary of Defense.

I didn't think Bush was sleeping with Donald Rumsfeld, but I'm sure you know better.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy:
I'm missing the point.

Inadvertently or on purpose?

alek0

Few questions for you, yguy.

1. Why would marriage automatically give a man the right to make decisions. What happens if a woman is more competent to do so?

2. You said:
If they both have intuitive knowledge of what's right, why is it necessary for the man only to make decisions. What happens if their "intuitive knowledge" has contradictory claims? Do all parents have "intuitive knowledge" on parenting? Does this include abusive parents, forgot-the-baby-in-the-car-on-a-hot-day parents, suffocated-the-baby-because-it-was-cryin-during-football-game parents etc.?

3. You said:
What proof do you have that children are harmed if the man is not the only one making decisions in the family? What about "traditional" families where the man has absolute authority and the children are harmed by his irresponsible decisions and by witnessing his lack of respect for their mother's intellectual abilities?

4. You claimed previously that a woman should marry a man more intelligent than her. How should she do that, and what happens if she can't find one? Does being more intelligent makes one more competent in all relevant areas, including those of which he has little or no knowledge and no practical experience?

Edited to add:

5. Address the issue of manipulation.

Manipulation by children - when children realize that mother has no authority, they usually use any opportunity when father is not at home to commit things they wouldn't dare to do otherwise. If father has explosive temper and uses what mother considers excessive punishment, the mother will likely cover their asses. Unless children are very sensible, which is frequently not the case, this is a recipe for disaster.

Manipulation by wife - when a woman realizes that only way to have thins the way she wants them is if her husbands thinks it is his idea, she may be tempted (and many do that in "traditional" marriages) to resort to manipulating her husband to get what she wants. If talking things over with him does not help since he has the final say, many women find manipulation good solution of the problem. Which results in very unhealthy relationship.

6. What makes you think that majority of men would be able to make better decision than their wives? What makes you think that the men, if they had absolute authority, would make decisions which are in the best interest of whole family, not only their own? What makes you think that they wouldn't abuse the power they have and that they would consider opinions and feelings of the other family members equally before reaching the decision?

PandaJoe

yguy, please explain what this "natural authority" is, and why only men possess it.

Daleth

The devil made me do this. Or the flu. Or a devil of a flu.

Because she has no natural authority over him.

Calling it a logical fallacy does not make it wrong.

He doesn't, necessarily. He may make mistakes and he must learn from them. He doesn't necessarily have better knowledge, more skill, or greater intuition. What he has is a natural authority and a need to be free to learn. She can, of course, offer her suggestions when she thinks he's about to make a mistake, and perhaps he'll learn just from what she says. If he's smart, he'll see when she's right. If not, she's got no authority to override his decision. She's got to let him make the mistake and have his learning experience. If he does this too often, or if he does not learn from his mistakes, she should not take authority, but instead find another man to give authority to.

Then it (marriage) is a learning experience for them both.

No. She has the intuitive knowledge as well. Having this intuitive knowledge is a self-defense mechanism for her, because if she lacks a natural respect for his authority and decisions, she's bound to get the crap beat out of her for trying to take authority. No, really, the woman must intuitively know what's right as well as the man so that she'll be secure in granting him authority and so that there will not be a power struggle within the family.

Yes, except that if he delegates a certain authority to her, for instance deciding how the children should dress on a very cold day, and she screws up that decision and the children all end up in the hospital with frostbite, he has no one to blame for it but himself.

Right. Now you're getting it. And if he judges this incorrectly, the fault is his, not hers, because the authority was naturally his and what he did was delegate it to her inappropriately. His decision was bad.

Wrong. She can not steer the ship correctly. If she is steering the ship, it is de facto wrong. It matters not how she does it, but whether she does it at all.

(Afraid I don't know how long yguy thinks an engagement should be.) Obviously the couple should get to know each other while they are engaged, and during that time he should be able to determine whether she is gender confused or whether she has retained her intuitive undersanding of natural gender roles. If she is not gender confused, she is clearly granting him authority over her when she agrees to marry him. If she is gender confused, he should not marry her. Given the rampant gender confusion in current society, it might be best that they discuss this outright. In the past, when men were men and women were women, it was more implicit.

Well, if he's a good man, a respectable man, he should have prepared himself for marriage, and he should be open to learning as he goes along. He should not assume that he always knows the right answer to everything. He should read and research his decisions and try to make them wisely. She should see that he's doing these things and respect him for it, and thus willingly grant him authority.

This one is like the "teaching her to steer the ship" question.

Male love is corrective. Therefore if a male seems to be displaying a kind of love that is not corrective, it is not truly love. (Yes, since you ask, he is indeed a Scottsman.)

In a way, yes. He'll grow to be a better person by being able to learn from his mistakes. She'll grow to be a better person through his corrective love.

Nature gave men the right (why do you call it a right rather than a responsibility?) to make decisions. The woman can not be more competent to do so because she is not a man. She can be intelligent, capable, successful and experienced, but she can not be a man.

Because he has natural authority. If the woman does not allow him to express his natural authority, even if the decisions she makes are the same as the man would have made, the children are going to grow up gender confused.

She informs him of her different perspective. He wisely weighs this with all of the other information he has, and makes the final decision.

It is possible that their intuitive knowledge has been bred out of them, just as intuitive knowledge has been bred out of cannibals, due to the past decades of the decay of the family unit. It is also possible that they intuitively know what they are doing is wrong, and that they are bad people.

[QUOTE](alek0) What proof do you have that children are harmed if the man is not the only one making decisions in the family?[QUOTE]
Look at the decline of the family. Look at divorce rates and children being raised by single parents and people choosing to have families outside of wedlock and gays being given the right to marry in Canada and becoming more accepted in the States. These are all symptoms of gender confusion.

Gender confusion is caused, at least in part, by parents not accepting their natural roles in marriage. The children in such a relationship will be harmed because they will not learn proper gender roles, and gender confusion will multiply. The structure of the traditional family made this country great, therefore the decay of that family system can only lead to the country's decline.

OK. That's enough of this game. I'm tired and sick. yguy, I'm actually getting you right a lot of the time, aren't I? Of course I still fail to understand how a woman's natural power over all males plays into this. Please illustrate with several hundred examples.

Dal

yguy

Just enough of the time to impart the maximum perception of idiocy to my ideas.

I believe I can give you several million, if you will tell me how women got the vote. Was it strictly from the goodness of men's hearts? I'm betting you don't believe that any more than I do, from which it seems to follow that they had some form of bargaining power. What was it?

yguy

Inadvertently. Do you believe me?

Daleth

Aw, c'mon. How frequently did I get the answers "right"? From what I've read, much of it was right on the money. Admittedly, some of it was silly, but for the most part that is the way you respond. You make circular arguments. Men should be granted authority. Why? Because they are men. You have yet to answer that question in any other way. Because it's natural. Because not to follow traditional gender roles breeds gender confusion.

If you have an answer... a straight-forward answer... please give it. I'd like to know. I'm not kidding or insulting you.

If you think what I wrote sounds idiotic, please note that it's because there is no foundation to what I wrote. It starts with an idea that I claim is "obvious" and do not substantiate. Please explain the foundation to us.

No, no, I understand that you believe that women have a great deal of power over men because of sex... because men are attracted to women more than women are attracted to men, or at least because men's control over their sexual urges is weaker. We had this conversation, and I understand you're take on that, but I'm not sure how it fits into this picture of the family, who is head of the family, gender confusion, and all of that. That's what I'm asking.

I'm making an effort to understand you. I'm not sure why. Maybe because I have the flu. Honestly, answer the questions QoS and alek0 asked. I'd like to see if your answers are substantially different from the ones I gave.

Dal

ETA: You were raised by a single mother, so you grew up in a non-traditional (gender-confused?) family with a woman as the head of the household. How is it that you did not grow up to be gender-confused yourself?

fatherphil

i have little interest in discussions that amount to a sentence by sentence dissection of a post. i don't discuss things like that in person so i can't grasp the benifit of it in this type of setting.

as for y-guy's statements & positions, certainly there must be some validity in what he states as it seems out of day to day observations rather than ideal notions. but i'll let him answer to what he believes and why.

one thing to note, the holder of the "final dicision" stamp does not always decides the issue in their own favor but must always take full resposibility for the outcome whichever way it goes.

we must remember there have been matrilineal societies where the male was relegated to little more than a sperm doner. i think the bigger picture is one in need of order more than anything else.

question: do you differentiate male/female characteristics by any other way besides physical traits? also is there a tendency for women to want to marry a man who is able to support them rather than the other way around?

i guess my main question is why folks want to redefine the normal trend to include there own tendencies rather than just accepting that they may be the exception to the norm ?