yguy

Seems to me the question answers itself. Elected officials earn a form of respect from the electorate by getting their votes. The husband gets the wife's vote when she agrees to let him captain the ship.

By giving her respect, the wife assents to the idea that the husband has a better idea of how and where the ship should be sailed than she does.

Actually, I think child rearing should be left pretty much to the mother for the first few years of a child's life, with the husband keeping an eye on things in case she does something really foolish.

As for the man making a bad decision, yes he should be allowed to make them - and be responsible for them. If he's a good man, he'll learn from the mistake. Yes, the rest of the family may suffer from it, but so do we suffer when the President makes a mistake.

If his decisions are consistently stupid enough to get them to the point where they're about to lose the house, for instance, she should take the kids and leave, IMO.

You don't have ships with two captains, or countries with two presidents. Why? Because there is no accountability there. As for why it should be a man, I don't know if I can get that point across, especially if you've had bad male role models in your life - as most have. You might rent the film, "The Swiss Family Robinson" sometime. Part of the plot is a love story, and in the final scene, the guy says he wants to go to Australia and be a pioneer. The girl says she's going to London to be an actress or something. The guy says - regretfully, without hinting at anything - that he doesn't see himself going to London. Right then she decides she's not going to London either, because she wants to go where he's going. The point is, it's a freely made decision on her part.

I'm sure as heck not proposing IQ tests as a prerequisite for marriage. There are plenty of intelligent people who can't read very well.

Where do you get that idea? It stops with him. Period.

Yes, because the wife has implicity agreed that his qualifications are sufficient.

It's not automatic, it's with the wife's consent.

In a way, it does. However, a mom's love tends to nurture selfishness in anyone, whereas a dad's love is corrective. If that's the case, a husband directing masculine love at a wife will make her a better person, whereas the reverse situation will see the husband becoming more of an irresponsible lout. In the first case, the wife becomes less and less emotionally dependent on the husband; in the second place, the husband becomes more and more dependent on the wife.

It's not making decisions, it's having authority over the man.

The same way they know intuitively when they're being punished unfairly by a parent who is frustrated about an unrelated matter and takes it out on the kid.

I think it is possible to breed the intuition out of a race. I think that's why there are cannibalistic cultures.

She does share it, just as the first mate shares the burden with the captain.

If you mean that wives shouldn't be simpering, groveling vassals, I agree. The husband should be able to handle every bitchfit she can muster without either reacting in kind or backing down. I believe Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew" was a good illustration, though I've never actually read the play myself. I also recommend Steinbeck's "East of Eden".

yguy

Funny how this country became the best in the world - especially with regard to freedom for women - having been, for the most part, blissfully unaware of this "necessity" for the first 150 years of its existence.

Or, to put it another way, the empirical data do not support your assertion.

Calzaer

That's the funniest thing I've heard since "You can't tell a tree's age by its rings; trees don't know how long a year is".

Any evidence for this "intuition"? No? Didn't think so. Am I going to have to start using my Magus55 response* with you too?



[*"Prove it or shut up"]

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
Seems to me the question answers itself. Elected officials earn a form of respect from the electorate by getting their votes. The husband gets the wife's vote when she agrees to let him captain the ship.

When does she agree to let him captain the ship under any and all circumstances?

Elected officials can lose their positions if they fail to satisfy the voters. Should the husband lose his position of authority if he fails to satisfy his wife in some way?

If a husband agrees to let the wife captain the ship, would this be a good arrangement, other than the fact that you personally might not like it?

By giving her respect, the wife assents to the idea that the husband has a better idea of how and where the ship should be sailed than she does.

Why does the husband automatically know better than the wife does? What happens if the wife has an idea of where the ship should sail and the husband thinks differently - is she always supposed to give in?

Actually, I think child rearing should be left pretty much to the mother for the first few years of a child's life,

Why? Doesn't the husband, by virtue of his being a man/having his wife's respect, automatically know better than the wife does about this too?

with the husband keeping an eye on things in case she does something really foolish.

Who defines what is "really foolish"? The husband, the wife, or you? If the wife wants something sensible for the children but the husband wants something foolish, does his "natural authority" again trump hers?

As for the man making a bad decision, yes he should be allowed to make them - and be responsible for them.

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.

If he's a good man, he'll learn from the mistake.

And if he's a bad man? Should his wife and children just throw up their hands and say, "oh, too bad we're suffering, but hey, at least we didn't usurp his natural authority"?

Yes, the rest of the family may suffer from it, but so do we suffer when the President makes a mistake.

If the president makes a mistake, will you lose all your money, or your friends, or contract a venereal disease? All these can happen as a result of bad decisions a man makes. Therefore, I think the analogy's a weak one.

Moreover, even if the president makes a mistake, are you stuck with that president for life? If not, how is this in any way comparable to marriage?

If his decisions are consistently stupid enough to get them to the point where they're about to lose the house, for instance, she should take the kids and leave, IMO.

And what if she would rather talk to him and get him to delegate authority where he feels he is not capable of handling matters by himself? I think two people respecting each other's strengths and compensating for each other's weaknesses might be better, under some circumstances, than a wife leaving her husband.

You don't have ships with two captains, or countries with two presidents. Why? Because there is no accountability there.

You don't have countries with both a Senate and a Judicial branch either, do you?

I think a marriage should be more about sharing authority than about who gets to make the final decision.

As for why it should be a man, I don't know if I can get that point across,

Please try.

...The point is, it's a freely made decision on her part.

I have no problem with people freely making decisions to subject themselves to the dominance of another person - but I do have a problem with this being proposed as the norm, or as a reasonable and beneficial thing.

I'm sure as heck not proposing IQ tests as a prerequisite for marriage. There are plenty of intelligent people who can't read very well.

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?

Where do you get that idea? It stops with him. Period.

All right, why does it stop with him? If a woman makes a foolish decision, is her husband held responsible?

Yes, because the wife has implicity agreed that his qualifications are sufficient.

When does she agree to this? And if it's implicit agreement, something not overtly and frankly stated, how do you know that she has agreed to this?

It's not automatic, it's with the wife's consent.

This does not answer my question. "No one is smart enough to know everything. That goes for husbands too. If they don't know everything, how can they automatically have the authority to make the final decision?" You can delete the word "automatically" if you like.

In a way, it does. However, a mom's love tends to nurture selfishness in anyone, whereas a dad's love is corrective.

Please provide evidence for your assertion that a father's love is always corrective.

If that's the case, a husband directing masculine love at a wife will make her a better person,

Why, then, should a woman not try to direct corrective love at her husband in order to make him a better person?

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?

In situations like this, sex must be the only thing that differentiates a man's relationship with his wife from a man's relationship with his daughter. I just hope the man remembers who to have sex with.

whereas the reverse situation will see the husband becoming more of an irresponsible lout. In the first case, the wife becomes less and less emotionally dependent on the husband; in the second place, the husband becomes more and more dependent on the wife.

Is there any evidence at all for these pseudo-psychological assertions or are they just your opinions?

It's not making decisions, it's having authority over the man.

This does not answer my question : "Are you making a generalization about all women here - that they are not comfortable or will not be comfortable making final decisions in their marriages?"

The same way they know intuitively when they're being punished unfairly by a parent who is frustrated about an unrelated matter and takes it out on the kid.

This does not answer my question : "How do they know this intuitively?" You could try to answer it by saying, for example, at what age children develop these powers of intuition such that they are able to grasp what gender roles you consider appropriate or inappropriate.

I think it is possible to breed the intuition out of a race. I think that's why there are cannibalistic cultures.

Do the children of these cannibalistic cultures also sense when their parents are not behaving in ways appropriate to their respective genders?

If you mean that wives shouldn't be simpering, groveling vassals, I agree.

I don't see how women can be expected to be strong or assertive (and there's a difference between strength and "bitchfits") when her husband considers her his inferior, applies a fatherly authority in order to make her a better person and considers her to be the follower whereas he is always the leader.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
Funny how this country became the best in the world - especially with regard to freedom for women - having been, for the most part, blissfully unaware of this "necessity" for the first 150 years of its existence.

Funny how this country became the best in the world - especially with regard to equality for black people - having been, for the most part, blissfully unaware of this "necessity" for the first 150 years of its existence.

cheetah

QoS, scigirl and others...you are tenacious and very thorough in your presentations. You are brave! Just reading this and the other thread yguy has been making his home in lately have caused me some serious vertigo. When will he stop claiming things are true just because he sees them that way. Seriously, I don't think I've seen another poster use the word 'obivous' so much, which is highly correlated with a lack of any factual information.

Well, back to my gender-confused life...My partner doesn't believe he is the captain of our ship, so watch out as we wreak havoc on all those around us. We're going to have father's day dinner at his parent's house tonight. I hope I don't accidentally give the father's day card to his mom, what with my gender-confusion and general lack of knowledge about my position as the woman...

Daleth

Ditto that! I gave up having this same conversation with yguy on the "practical pro-life solutions" thread because to his every "intuitively obvious" I reacted with an "intuitively absurd" and felt discussion would yield nothing. If you can get him to come up with something other than obvious I'll be interested in seeing it.

Good luck with that. Thank you for admitting that you're dooming the nation. Recognition of the problem is the first and most important step towards recovery.

Dal

scigirl

Thanks, cheetah!

Yes, so many unsupported assertions, and so little time! You will notice I no longer am interested in debating with yguy directly, for reasons I explained here, except to point out egregious errors in scientific statements.

I am, however, interested in what other theists such as fatherphil, HelenM, and the new phil, think of his beliefs and if they are willing to either defend them, refute them, or some combination of the two. I have a feeling that yguy's blatant homophobia, bigotry, sexism, and just plain strange off-the-wall links in his thinking (example - I have a mole on my arm, therefore the king of England is immoral - seems to make about as much sense as most of his statements) would even make a few baptist board members cringe. But would they refute him at the expense of agreeing with evil atheists? Not sure. It should be interesting.
HA HA! Too funny, cheetah.

yguy

When she marries him.

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.

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.

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

Men aren't good at mothering.

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

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.

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.

No, they should pack up and leave.

How should I know? Depends on the mistake, doesn't it?

The logic here escapes me.

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

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.

Get him to delegate authority? If he delegates authority, who's in charge? He is, of course. If he has any brains, he'll know when she knows better than he does.

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

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

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

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.

When they get married.

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.

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

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.

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.

She should, if the opportunity arises.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

yguy

I'm missing the point.