cwsox Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Robert Duval and Kevin Costner in "Open Range", Sean Penn in "Mysitic River", Vigo Mortenson in "LOTR", Jude Law in "Cold Mountain", or Russell Crowe in "Master and Commander" (<clip> don't exist in todays society and they never existed in any society - Now if the Sean Penn character in Mytsic River, either the fiction book or the fiction movie, is our role model, then we should all be ex-felons who take the law into our own hands and kill an innocent person and not own up to it, and let the widow and child never know their husband/father is dead Escaping in to a past that never was other than in story books and movies is not the solution to much of anything. This is not said to be unkind. The imagined past is so much more heroic than our own day - but it remains imagined. It was never reality. I would suggest the book Wisconsin Death Trip for those who want in words and pictures to see what it was really like in time before - it is not a work of fiction, it is a documentary of the 1890s - the enemy really is not that which "destroyed" all of the "old" values - it is a really good time for reading the book of Ecclesiastes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 and they never existed in any society - Now if the Sean Penn character in Mytsic River, either the fiction book or the fiction movie, is our role model, then we should all be ex-felons who take the law into our own hands and kill an innocent person and not own up to it, and let the widow and child never know their husband/father is dead Escaping in to a past that never was other than in story books and movies is not the solution to much of anything. This is not said to be unkind. The imagined past is so much more heroic than our own day - but it remains imagined. It was never reality. I would suggest the book Wisconsin Death Trip for those who want in words and pictures to see what it was really like in time before - it is not a work of fiction, it is a documentary of the 1890s - the enemy really is not that which "destroyed" all of the "old" values - it is a really good time for reading the book of Ecclesiastes I'm confused *****, I thought you believed in a more metaphorical symbolistic view of the OT, rather than a traditional literal historical view, and if that's the case, how is Uriah's portrayal of manhood any different than that of Russell Crow in "M&C" or Costner in "OR"?? real or fiction those are AWESOME examples of manhood and what every guy should strive for, moreover, I think you're incorrect for saying that men like that never existed...(see hundreds of examples from WWII, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 *****, while many great things have come out of the women's movement, it's clear that men in the early 1900s and men in the late 1900s are completely different. I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad, but I feel as though it's looked down upon if a man and a women accept their traditional gender roles. I think there's a segment of the population that believe a woman accepting the supportive and more passive role and the male taking on the leader position as the head of the family is thought of as archaic and even ignorant. I believe that men and women are very different and while we can choose to force the "women can do everything that men can do" mantra down our throats, any guy on this website could physically take down any women. There are differences, physical and non-physical. I think it was Gloria Steinman who said that "women are either feminists or masochists" sorry for my blanket statement in response to a blanket statement I got one word for ya PA: Chyna And I can honestly say, every girl on this site could take me down...one shot in the crotch and down goes Chisoxfn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 But to consider women's rights emasculating must mean that there was something wrong with masculinity in the first place. I certainly wouldn't want to be defined by something that meant someone MUST be in a subordinate position to me. And often times THAT is what traditional gender roles meant--the woman COULDN'T work. Often because once she was married she was FIRED. The women's lib movement FOUGHT to have that changed. FOUGHT HARD. Women honestly did lose their lives. And while your girlfriend is CHOOSING to stay home it is just that A CHOICE and not something that is taken for granted. I'm also assuming that you have an equal partnership. That you aren't the only one making decisions. That you'll help out around the house. That you'll change some diapers. That you'll not consider it your right to beat your wife. That once your marrid you won't consider sex a marital right. These are ALL tennenant of the feminist movements. If men find them emasulating I have to wonder what kind of men they are in the first place. The feminist movement only says that all people are equal regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, class, etc. And that all people should have equal opportunity to the same kind of living conditions and life opportunities as anyone else. I really encourage you to look at some honest to goodness REAL history of the feminist movement--not just what you hear. Try reading Feminism is For Everybody by bell hooks. Feminism isn't about emasculating--that's the opposite. It's about EQUALITY. I agree with you soxy, I really do support equality and the right to choose. I think I'm speaking from a biased situation where I've had experience with more extreme feminist whom I know look down on women like miss sox4life for her choice. They feel that EVERY woman must work outside of the home. I should have clarified. I admit my perspective does not represent the greater feminist movement, though the individuals I know would say that I was correctly describing how they feel. more power to women and choice.... internal dialogue: (maybe its the distortion and perversion of the traditional roles that people are so worked up about. I can see why one would be skeptical of traditional gender roles, with so many wackos out there nothing is sacred and without blemish anymore. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I got one word for ya PA: Chyna And I can honestly say, every girl on this site could take me down...one shot in the crotch and down goes Chisoxfn dude, chyna's more of a man than most guys on this site. give me a break. yeah...a nut shot usually takes me down too. that's why I got steel implants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I got one word for ya PA: Chyna And I can honestly say, every girl on this site could take me down...one shot in the crotch and down goes Chisoxfn Lol, and I'm sure all the self-defense classes we take could really aid in our kicking of butt. Come on--we give birth, PA, don't you dare think we're frail. And my mom and several of my older friends have given birth WITHOUT anasthetic. Women might be physically smaller--but we've got a lot of toughness. And as for you examples of macho men. If I want to be dominated like that I'll go to an S & M place. And yes, there are lots of examples heroism in men. But there are lots of those in the WOMEN that served too. The nurses that went over seas and risked their lives too. That's not passive. I mean, if that's the ideal of masculinity I think we're creating SO MANY problems for our young boys in America. This Cult of Manhood has often actually been linked with domestic and sexual violence (I can e-mail you the citations if you want them)...We shouldn't prescribe what it means to be a man or a woman. That is an OBJECTIVE experience. What it means to me to be a woman is different from anyone else. When we tell people how to be a man or a woman we just run into problems.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I'm confused *****, I thought you believed in a more metaphorical symbolistic view of the OT, rather than a traditional literal historical view, and if that's the case, how is Uriah's portrayal of manhood any different than that of Russell Crow in "M&C" or Costner in "OR"?? those are your words and not mine you advocate what I would term a fundamentalist view - whatever you term it, to claim you follow a "traditional literal historical view" is spin for a doctrine that is unsupported by 1800+ years of Christian Covenant (NT) Biblical studies. I have no clue what you really mean by "metaphorical symbolistic" but if you liken to that to fiction, then I suggest that you make the effort to read again anything I wrote in this thread. I am deeply offended that you would suggest that I view the Bible as fiction. I stated what I believe the Scriptures to be - I ran the Confession of Faith of the church body to which I belong. Look up somewhere what the confessional standpoint of "Sola Scriptura" means and that is where my confessional identity would lie. It is really insulting to suggest other. I recall a recent post where you stated your disrespect for those with MDivs and then listed a bunch of people, at least some/half of whom if not more, if not all, had no MDivs. I let that factual error go by. But the games continue. I have said all that needs to be said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 The thing I found funny is how men feel like less of a man if 'their woman' makes more than them. Not all men are like that (I am marrying one that was, by his own admission like that, but has changed his mind since meeting me) granted, but I have known many men that thought that way and often said they would never date a woman who makes more money than they do. Brian says that for him, it was a self-esteem thing - but he realized that because I make what I do doesn't make him less of a man (and now because he received better raises than I have, thanks to a union contract, he makes $1.50 an hr more than me). come back in ten years and tell me how you feel.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 come back in ten years and tell me how you feel.... About what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 About what? well the situation changed for you because your husband now is making more than you...if you were the breadwinner for 10 years and if i was a betting man id bet you feel quite a bit different than you do now... as far as the rest of the thread goes about roles in society...its all nice and PC and sounds good in theory but does it work in real life???...ill bet with my last dollar that even today , with as enlightened as we all claim to be 99% of women out there are still looking for a strong , protector , a man willing and wanting to take the leadership role in the relationship...im not saying they want to stay home and be told what to do..but ill bet 995 would love the option of being able to stay home if they want to and also would crave the security of having a man that could protect them and was willing to do it should the need arise.. traditional roles are not a bad thing ... its people that abuse them that have given them a bad rap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 well the situation changed for you because your husband now is making more than you...if you were the breadwinner for 10 years and if i was a betting man id bet you feel quite a bit different than you do now... I doubt it (as long as the bills are paid, food is on the table, clothes on our back and we have a few dollars towards sporting events, I'm a happy camper), but I guess I'll have to wait and see. The money gets pooled in any sense, but I kinda understand where you are coming from. EDIT - (forgot) my mom made a bit more than my dad at the beginning of their marriage, then after 5 years, dad made more and then 12 years later (from then 'til now) mom makes more. I guess I've seen it flip-flop a bit, it never struck me that who made more was important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 but I feel as though it's looked down upon if a man and a women accept their traditional gender roles. I think there's a segment of the population that believe a woman accepting the supportive and more passive role and the male taking on the leader position as the head of the family is thought of as archaic and even ignorant. The adjective "accepting" is very funny one. For ages it had a certain implication..... Social taboos and lack of opportinity + family's expectations + an unwanted pregnancy + physical, psychological and economic pressure from her "early 1900s" man = I can see how that would put a woman in a particularly "accepting" mood. I believe that men and women are very different and while we can choose to force the "women can do everything that men can do" mantra down our throats, any guy on this website could physically take down any women. There are differences, physical and non-physical. I dunno PA, some mantras are worth shoving down unenlightened throats.....We've recently found out that, among other things, women are every bit as intelligent, creative and competitive as men are despite the millenii of insufficient experience and lack of education...... And I am pretty sure that after a swift knee in the nads and a small razor strategically placed at your throat while you're on the ground, any woman on here can subjugate you in SECONDS if need be. I think it was Gloria Steinman who said that "women are either feminists or masochists" Hey, why don't you quote Andrea Dworkin while you're at it. I am sure she' got a sound-byte for you Just because I don't bang a nail in with me forehead to show off to my drunken neanderthal buddies or view/treat women as glorified servants/baby machines God conveniently put there for my pleasure.......that don't make me any less of a man. But hey.....if having a consciece, erudition, personality, creativity and a fundamental respect for other's rights and consideration of other's feelings somehow DOES make me less of a man in some backward moron's eyes...then, hell, I am all too happy to admit to being one. I say if you are totally secure in your manhood/masculinity and got your ego on a leash.....I don't see how the idea of a strong (physically and psychologcally), assertive, independent thinking woman should "emascalamatate" you. If anything, it pushes your bounderies and chellenges you to be an even bigger man if you wanna mantain the handle on things. Makes it more FUN, too. Besides....contrary to the myth....a hot feminist is a HUGE turn on. PS I should add that it's a GIVEN that if a woman really DOES want to be "passive and supportive" and stuff, nobody should have a problem with that. Certainly not me. Unlike *some* people, I DON'T PRESUME to know what's *best* for her or for society-- didn't get the memo yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 traditional roles are not a bad thing ... its people that abuse them that have given them a bad rap... Right. But equal partnerships aren't a bad thing either. And I mean, how often do women nowadays NEED protecting? What is my boyfriend supposed to protect me from? My final exam? Getting rejected from a PhD program? Getting in a car accident--he's gotten in more than me btw...I've never exactly been clear on what EXACTLY women need protecting from. I mean, life happens. If someone breaks into the home--maybe. If a woman is assaulted odds are it'll be by someone she knows (over 70% by an acquientence) not some stranger in the house. So, I'm unclear as to the protector role. No, there's nothing WRONG with traditional roles, with someone in a subordinate position. But wouldn't you rather have a PARTNER than someone you have to look after? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Besides....contrary to the myth....a hot feminist is a HUGE turn on. *ahem* And I've got it on pretty good authority we're a fun bunch once you start dating us too. We're liberated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I doubt it (as long as the bills are paid, food is on the table, clothes on our back and we have a few dollars towards sporting events, I'm a happy camper), but I guess I'll have to wait and see. The money gets pooled in any sense, but I kinda understand where you are coming from. it usually is ok in the situation you list..bills paid , food on the table ect.. but the real test would be what happens if youre having trouble making those things happen???...thats when the resentment starts to come in.. i dont know how long you have been married but it is important to atleast understand the traditional roles so you can protect against outside influences.. get in a financial situation where things arnt so good and youre the breadwinner and i swear you'll have all your girlfriends telling you what a bum your husband is...if youre not careful you'll start to believe it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 it usually is ok in the situation you list..bills paid , food on the table ect.. but the real test would be what happens if youre having trouble making those things happen???...thats when the resentment starts to come in.. i dont know how long you have been married but it is important to atleast understand the traditional roles so you can protect against outside influences.. get in a financial situation where things arnt so good and youre the breadwinner and i swear you'll have all your girlfriends telling you what a bum your husband is...if youre not careful you'll start to believe it... We're not married yet (shooting for 5/14/05), but have been living together for a year and a half. We've been through and might be going through a financially challenging time (I was laid off last year, but got a job right away and this year, the plant he works at looks like they might close down). For the most part, we do tend to cling to somewhat traditional roles - I do the cooking and laundry, he tends to the cars and we both do household chores. As to the last part - VERY TRUE - that's what I say about my nephew's father, but in that case, my sister agrees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 *ahem* And I've got it on pretty good authority we're a fun bunch once you start dating us too. We're liberated. To be fair....."liberated" ones aren't always such a good thing. Sluts are overrated IMHO. Courtship, mind games especially the "talking into various 'extracarricular' activities" part are half the fun anyway.....even if masochistic by nature. And once there, overwhelming an inexperienced "conservative" girl (no, not Jesus freak virgins!) in bed can be great fun. It's an ego thing. But hey, reasonably liberated works too and has it's privileges, Soxy. Keep on fighting a good fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 To be fair....."liberated" ones aren't always such a good thing. Sluts are overrated IMHO. Liberated doesn't mean sexually active in my book. It means in touch with your sexual boundries and comfortable with your own sexuality. Two very different things, at least to me. I think that those two things make it much easier to have an adult relationship and make it easier to be open, honest, and "good" healthy sexual. Sexuality definitly does not mean sex, it can, but it definitly doesn't have to.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I'm not exactly sure how this fits into the thread here, but after reading the last couple pages, I got to thinking about how men seem to be suckers for nubile hotties, while women seem to have a weak spot for men with power/money(Yes, I realize it doesn't apply to everyone, but it's a pretty accurate generality). It would seem that somewhere deep in the genetic makeup of a man/woman there is something that causes us to be susceptible to such things. I would guess that, going back to the earliest form of man, when simply propegating(is that the right word? Or am I skytalking here? Just call me Mike Tyson) the species was a more urgent and difficult task, genetics would cause the male to choose healthy, good-looking women because they would make great baby-carriers. In turn, the female would be attracted to the leader of the tribe, or the guy with the biggest cave, because he would seem best suited to provide for and protect future children. It would make sense then that this played a part in shaping the male and female roles in society, even up until recent times, and now we seem to be evolving out of it or perhaps using our will(the very thing that separates humans from other animals) to disregard it. Just a thought, does it make sense to anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I remember why I hated this place.... I think most of those who responded to me, with the exception of the girls(fanof and chisoxy), just threw a bunch of sarcasm and dismissal towards me. Any further discussion of this topic is moot. I personally come from a more traditional raising, but definitely have a very open mind about how a "partnership" as chisoxy put it will/can/would/should work. I think traditional roles with a very modernized perspective is A, but not THE, way to have a family. I suggested that I I have no idea what the "coded-one", mr *****, said in his post, so I'll just skip him, except for in no way, shape or form was I suggesting that you believed the bible was fiction, more of that you're a Marcus Borg Christian. You believe less in the literal historical and more in the metaphorical translation of the bible. Rather than it reading like a history book, it's like Aesop's fables. (sp?) Brando gave me a a list of crap and sarcasm so what's the point in responding to him? Sweet Jebus...I was meerly stating one side of the arguement and pointing out I'm somewhere in the middle. If those movies and characters I've listed don't inspire you to want to stand up and fight for your woman, family, the human race, well, fine, but I'm just saying that there are many of us out there that think that those examples, albeit fiction, stand as a role model for us in some ways. BAH, I'm outta here. Thanks chisoxy and fanof14 for your thoughts. In no way do I think y'all are weak and can't do anything in this world. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be afraid of traditional gender roles. (don't get me started on women ministers/pastors.... ) And DUELY noted, I'm definitely in favor of equality. TRUST ME...miss sox4life instills that in my daily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 men like Robert Duval and Kevin Costner in "Open Range", Sean Penn in "Mysitic River", Vigo Mortenson in "LOTR", Jude Law in "Cold Mountain", or Russell Crowe in "Master and Commander" (all of which would be in the top 10 movies of last year) don't exist in todays society Those are MOVIES....works of FICTION....featuring COMPOSITES of various IDEALS and HERO ARCHITYPES that may or may not have ever existed.....Wake the f*** up. I get it...people today don't know how to be true, how to love, and have no honor or courage....blablabla-trite-and-simplistic-generalization-cakes. It was tired when BMR was paying crooked lip service to it. Meh. I love white-washing and romanticizing the past/different cultures, and far be it from me to dismiss the need for art and heroic ideals.......But at some point all this "society is collapsing; people aren't the same!" rhetoric crosses over into undiluted BULLs*** realm. Re: draft. If you wanna die for a trivial cause such as an illegal war, it's YOUR business, I applaud you. Frankly, I value my life and my family too much. Unless it's a Hitler 2.0 type threat where it's a question of survival, sorry... go find some OTHER clog in the machine. Methinks I'll contribute to society some other, equally important, way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Brando gave me a a list of crap and sarcasm so what's the point in responding to him? I am sorry, should I have told you what you wanted to hear and agree with you even though I don't? If you're looking for total ideological/spiritual homogenuity, perhaps melgibsonisgod.com would be more suiting to your sensibilities. BTW, I was raised by a couple of SUPER-AWESOME grandmothers who in their youth gave up SO MUCH (trust me) to bring up my parents and then their grandkids, and NEVER showed anything remotely resembling regret, at least not that I've seen. So I would NEVER suggest that woman-at-home thing is wrong or ineffective.... IF and only if it's a direct result of a CHOICE made with a clean conscience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ...the species was a more urgent and difficult task, genetics would cause the male to choose healthy, good-looking women because they would make great baby-carriers. In turn, the female would be attracted to the leader of the tribe, or the guy with the biggest cave, because he would seem best suited to provide for and protect future children. It would make sense then that this played a part in shaping the male and female roles in society, even up until recent times, and now we seem to be evolving out of it or perhaps using our will(the very thing that separates humans from other animals) to disregard it. Just a thought, does it make sense to anyone? Actually it does, and you're not far off. Men and women are wired differently - neither is better, just different - and have had different roles through the course of human evolution. The oversimplified generalization that women do not have as good a 'map-sense' as men, while not always true, is the result of a human evolutionary history that required the male protectors to be more spatially cognative... 'Where was that water hole again... what leaves made my ass sore last time... isn't this where that sabertooth cat usually... Yearghh!!.' The male attraction to young, child-bearing-caoable women is borne of instinct, as is the femal attraction to a protector. Some very smart people consider the higher incidence of promiscuity/infidelity in men versus women to also be partly instinctive - sperm is cheap, multiple pairings produce the most progeny, etc. And yes, our capacity for reason allows us to very successfully subjugate these instinctive urges. Or as Rosie (Kate Hepburn's character) says in African Queen, "Nature, Mr. Alnott, is what we were put on this earth to rise above." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 get in a financial situation where things arnt so good and youre the breadwinner and i swear you'll have all your girlfriends telling you what a bum your husband is...if youre not careful you'll start to believe it... If her man's got work ethic, some ambition and is honest, even if he only makes average wage, why on earth would she think he is a bum? Fo14 doesn't seem like the superficial idiot-queen type. (Of course, if he IS a bum, then instead of blaming her gossiping friends, maybe he should look in the mirror. Just saying.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 If her man's got work ethic, some ambition and is honest, even if he only makes average wage, why on earth would she think he is a bum? Fo14 doesn't seem like the superficial idiot-queen type. Nope, my Brian is no bum. It's hard to be a bum when you work 60 hrs a week. He talks about staying at home to work on cars, but I know he couldn't handle not working so I don't see the harm in dreaming a little. A bum would be my nephew's father...that worthless POS. No, I don't say anything in front of my neph about his dad (he's only 6 months, but I don't want to get in any bad habits). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.