|
|
|
|
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/12/2008 4:31:42 PM | | It is a harsh word and is taken out of context.Some religions have emphsised it more as a woman's position to do so. OBEY is for both spouses to be loyal to each other, respecting the marriage, in order to preserve it, not destroy it by being dominating and controlling ,or it being the obligation of one person in the marriage. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/12/2008 5:21:03 PM | In these days, I think many women (in the US, at least) have enough social equality with males where they don't feel obligated to obey their male mates. This is not the case in most of the world, for one reason or another.
My son was in the infantry in Afghanistan and he was told that soldiers shouldn't even look at Afghan women, lest their husband should see them, blame the woman for it and beat them when they got home.
I also know that even in some minority cultures in the US, women feel they have to accept marital infidelity. I heard one woman tell another, in mixed company, in the office at work no less:"I don't even think about it anymore. He just calls me and tells me. To me, it's like "I'm eating out tonight, honey."
Although I'm sure nobody likes to be treated this way by their mates, basically it's like economics in that if one mate needs the other more than the other needs them, then they're forced to accept things they wouldn't under other circumstances... Although males are generally less accepting of this than females in general.
Few well educated white women in the US feel so desperate these days that they need to accept unequal status with their mate. Hence, they demand an equal (or sometimes greater than equal) status with their mates.
Translation: "Obey" is going out of style in the US. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/12/2008 8:33:34 PM | woobytoodsday wrote:
disclaimer: I'm in no way an expert on this. . . . But I wonder if the standards initially were necessary? Have women firefighters proved to be damaging to the general welfare? I wonder because in the 70's for a while I was dating a college linebacker: big beautiful specimen of a male he was, too. He wanted to join the D.C. police force. But he weighed "too much." Not one ounce of fat on the man, but muscle weighs more than fat. . . . So I had to wonder then at the "standards. . . . "
You bring up a good point and I very much agree that the tests need to be representative of the actual work that needs to be done on the job. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t see it that way. The following was taken from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/txt/publications/fa-128.txt
“The federal law that regulates employment tests, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,3 is defined in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)." This law, and later court decisions interpreting it, provides that an employment selection device such as a physical test can be challenged if it has an "adverse" or "disparate" impact on a protected group: in other words, if the test disqualifies women or racial minorities in disproportionate numbers.*According to the EEOC Guidelines, a selection rate for a protected group that is
Less than 80% of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded as evidence of a test's disparate impact.”
It was under these laws and court rulings that the government forced fire departments nation wide to discontinue testing that eliminated women from making it; in particular, the upper body strength requirements. Why? Well, because women physically were no match for males. It’s amusing that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg uses statistics to make these sorts of rulings when her entire staff is all white and all Jewish as pointed out by the lawyer that lost a case to her.
To tie this in to the thread, women have for many years obeyed men because men protect women because men are stronger and better fighters. This concept is shodowed by the government zellously attempting to make everyone “equal” by nullifying standards.
Recently we had a female police officer “tazer” an 11 year old girl in one of our Florida schools. I just cannot see any man doing that to a child. I can only imagine that the officer didn’t think that she could take on the 11 year old like a man would have done.
I cannot believe that I am arguing a point that is so crystal clear. If women are men’s equal physically, then why are there no female pro football players or pro basketball players? Why do women tee off closer to the green in golf? Why would there be separate sports teams just for women and why would they not just compete in the same sports along with men?
Women, on the other hand, have many qualities superior to men. We are all equally valuble but not at all equal. I have absolutely no problem with women in even physically demanding jobs like firefightering, provided the tests they have to pass for the positions are NOT made easier for them or the tests are NOT deminished for everyone to assure women make it. Unfortunately, the standards have been dramatically dropped to accomadate women. Personally, I am amused by women trying so hard to be men. Now, if I was sitting there roasting marshmallows over my burning leg, I’m sure I would be more concered about it all. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/15/2008 6:27:14 PM | I agree with StrangerInTheHouse that this does resemble a master/slave relationship. But I also agree that power dynamics have always existed in any relationship. The one who makes the most money makes the rules. Unfortunate, but true. But isn't it ironic that the proponents of the submissive wife role also vehemently oppose women working for pay. Not only do they find a strong, independent woman threatening, they would find such a woman less controllable. Her income would be considered a bargainning chip in the marriage. Her husband would be more inclined to see her as an equal partner. Someone just as important as he is. Unfortunately, in the past, women had to rely on sex as a bargainning chip in their marriages. Not only was that demeaning to the wife, but also very insulting to the man too. Most men know when they are being manipulated. I believe that this sort of tactics diminished women in the eyes of their husbands as well. Not only do the husbands begin to resent them, they begin to view them as "domestic whores." Sad, but true. That is what a traditional wife was: just a glorified whore. A domestic whore; one who exchanges sexual and domestic services for financial support and sustainance. Simple as that.
But there is a better way. I believe that marriages based on true equality would be ideal for everyone, including society. If both partners focused on meeting EACHOTHER'S NEEDS rather than just the wife meeting her husband's needs alone, I think everyone would be much happier. Well, most people any way. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/15/2008 9:31:07 PM |
likethewind wrote: I believe that marriages based on true
equality would be ideal for everyone, including society.
If both partners focused on meeting EACH OTHER'S NEEDS
rather than just the wife meeting her husband's needs alone,
I think everyone would be much happier.
In all healthy marital formats husband and wife are
regarded as equals and focused on meeting each other's needs,
but traditional (leader/follower) marriages are based on
complementarian equality, not egalitarian equality.
That is, one spouse (usually the husband) has the final say
in cases where compromise and negotiation aren't possible.
The husband getting his needs met at the expense of his wife
is not a feature of traditional marriage, it's a consequence of
choosing a foolish, corrupt, selfish leader. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/15/2008 11:20:19 PM | I was looking more for "Love, Honor and Shut the **** Up, Woman".
No, seriously..........all kidding aside, remember the old days, and the way it used to be done. Therefore, it is a carry over from the "golden years" of normalcy and society.
I think, like many men do (and like the thread over there suggested), that the so-called women's view of "equality" would be exactly why less men are interested in being married.
Love it or hate it, the damage is done. I don't want her to obey me, I want her to leave me the hell alone...........
When you get TWO selfish pricks in a relationship, it would explain why current divorce rates are so high. So much for your "equality" in relationships ladies.
You built the monster, now live with it. Until the divorce that is. | |
|
| |
| |
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/16/2008 8:02:51 PM | jeanieweeman wrote:
I think I already addressed the obey thing earlier...thats not true about the upper body strength. We still have the same requirements as men. I HAVE NOT FAILED ANY TEST, NOR HAS ANY FEMALE IN OUR STATION...We train rigorously with a fellow firefighter trainer. I have no problem carrying 200 lbs, or dragging a full sized man out of a house....our tools are heavy, our hoses are charged with water.. it was extremely heavy with nozzles and couplings,.... its tough, to walk around with them and transport them into a building.....add the steps in there too...26 steps up and down 20 times with full gear on. I think you just like to put down women, because it makes you feel good about yourself.The guys and gals at our station range from 15 to 69. When I read the old timers your song and dance here...they busted out laughing because you are full of sh#@. These are third and fourth generation FF that know what the standards have been all along and not one of them believed what you said here. They said arm wrestling is for sissys, and you wouldn't make it through 5 minutes of hose hockey. By the way they value me for my teamwork, integrity and whats inside not my looks. But thanks for the compliment...you missed the point. I wouldn't obey you for a million bucks...or anyone for that matter.I don't need a man to protect me when I can do this for myself. We aren't living in roman times. Love and honor to me are greater than this.
I’m sure you are in exceptional condition for a woman and that you passed all of the “current” requirements to be in the job you have. Your teammates are not going to open the can of worms of women’s lib at work because that’s soooo politically incorrect. If you and your teammates actually believe that women are physically equal to men then there is no information that would sway that delusion. Recognizing the factual differences between men and women is in no way putting women down. I did not invent the phrase the “weaker sex” and anyone with any common sense knows women, on average, are no match for men physically. I do believe that men make better firemen, better policemen, and better combat solders because of their superior physical abilities and because they are tougher.
If the government wants to change the tests and requirements so that women have jobs better suited for men then there is not a lot I can do about it. No matter how politically incorrect what I say may appear to be, it is true the standards have been dropped to allow people that formally didn’t make it to make it now. The government has regulated things to death to achieve what they want. I believe that the best candidates should get the jobs and that does not exclude all women.
The following was written by a fireman: “The agility test ranges from easy to hard, depending on the jurisdicition. The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), in conjunction with several large departments, has created the Candidate Physical Agility Test (CPAT), that simulates expected work tasks, without requiring job-specific knowledge. The tasks are performed with a weighted vest, to simulate the Air-Pak worn by firefighters. The CPAT is not used by all jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions, mine included, give an easier test rather than deal with explaining why x% of men and y% of women passed the physical agility test. For my particular physical agility test, my completion time was around seven minutes. The original failure time was 15, then 21, then any time so long as it was completed. This was done to get enough women on the hiring list. This is fact.”
Another fireman was saying that women used to have to bench press 150 poinds and men 200 pounds to make it into the department. They did away with even that standard because it clearly was easier for women and they, meaning the government, didn’t want the perception that women were any different from men.
I have nothing against you or women. However, I am very upset with the government and their deminishment of standards and how they try to buffer society to protect women under the governmental illusion that they are men’s physical equals. You’re not and never will be.
Of course, I do not expect or want women to obey men that they are not married to and we are not married. Women should obey their husbands and very much in the way that David Lewis explained. One cannot take the word obey out of context with your husband’s promise to love and honor you. Those that have said that both should promise to obey are off base too because as David pointed out there only can be one leader and additionally that is not at all Biblically based. Unless the man you marry is a horse’s ass, he’s not going to order you around like a slave girl and he will take into account your needs and desires in his decisions. If something doesn’t sit well with you then there may be something he overlooked and he needs to listen and perhaps rethink his decision so that any problems are addressed.
By the way, like your teammates, I value what’s inside you too. Glad to hear that you can handle large charged hoses. I liked that up and down part a lot too. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/16/2008 10:05:13 PM | | Good Lord get a grip. It's been said for a long time and is part of the vows. If the couple doesn't mind then get over it. I know marriage and monogamy are very uncool in todays messed up world, but some people do believe in it. Obey isn't like a dog its about respecting each others wishes, sacrificing for eachother and loving eachother. Again, I know this is a huge shocker, but the couple doesnt' really care what people think about someone who over analyzes the vows. Its their day, not yours. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/17/2008 10:02:14 AM | Well in response to David Lewis, I do not agree with the concept of "complementary equality." There is no such thing! Just like the concept of "separate but equal" is an oxymoron, so it is with any kind of relationship that involves a leader/follower. The idea that someone can overrule their partner just by virtue of their sex is repellent to me. I think it is based on a sense of entitlement and in itself very selfish. If the situation were based on race or class instead of gender most people would also find that repellent as well.
While I agree that in all healthy marital formats both spouses are focused on meeting eachother's needs; but it doesn't seem to be the case in marriages where the spouses are unequal. It seems like the woman does(and is expected to) be the one to do all the accommodating and submitting. It seems that in those type of marriages, the only thing that the husband has to contribute is his income, where the wife is the one expected to do the "servicing." Thus, she assumes the role of a domestic whore rather than a partner and wife.
While I do not consider myself a feminist, but rather, a humanist, I believe that true equality between the sexes, and between married spouses should be based on the principle of democracy, not necessarily anyone's version of equality. Not women's version, not men's version, not religious version, but equality based on the very principles of democracy.
I realize that their will always be people who base their marriages on a leader/follower, or rather dominance/submission model, and that not everyone wants or desire true equality, and that is ok. The way I look at it is that there will always be people who take the path of least resistance. And that not only pertains to marriage but in life in general. I realize that a truly egalitarian marriage may seem and look difficult for other people, I think the rewards are truly greater than for those who allow custom, culture, religion, traditions dictate and define for them what it means to be a married person. I think that I would rather be the one to define for myself what it means to be a married person in the US. What it means to be a woman. What it means to be free. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/17/2008 5:28:31 PM | Interesting how a profile can generate so much attraction
and then one post destroys it all. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/17/2008 5:43:38 PM |
I only obey when having sex. Sometimes. :)
There is a saying in aviation, where divorce is common due to job demands. and it goes like this:
"Getting Married for the sex is like buying a747 for the free peanuts". I think this saying applies to this thread!
Just my .02 | |
|
| |
| |
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/18/2008 8:30:45 AM | | If you want serious, I can give you serious. I would never marry anyone that didn't love, honor and yes obey. A lot of failed marriages in modern society come from feminazi's that think this is outdated thinking. It's biblical and I expect a lot of flak because I can't fully explain all the ramifications in a few sentences and most don't fully understand the concept of obedience they think it means you are considered less of a person or not considered an equal partner but that is not the case. | |
|
| |
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/18/2008 9:59:23 PM | | I think respect would be a better word. Respect is something that I truly believe that every body wants. I think that if every body just followed the golden-rule, treat others the way that they would like to be treated we would have a much better world. A world with much less conflict. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/18/2008 10:20:04 PM | | Women need to learn to obey their husbands. Women's lib has ruined everything. The world was better when women knew their place was in the home and submitting to their husbands. Marriages were forever back then. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:16:57 AM | I agree with ang65. Don't yall just miss the days when you could get home from work, throw down a sixer, then beat the wife and children before passing out?
unf-ckin' believable! | |
|
| |
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/19/2008 9:40:54 AM | | Why cant couples take turns having the decision follow their way when there is an impasse in decision making? If you are compatible and use common sense there should not be many impasses anyway. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/19/2008 9:48:39 AM | | This is exactly why I firmly believe that people should write their own vows. I takes time and commitment to sit and try to put into words how you feel. Some are better writyten than others but atleast it's from the heart. | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/20/2008 7:28:59 PM | I have been married twice. I may so again (tomorrow is another day). The word "cherish" that the man generally says is quite difficult. If you check out the bible... "Cherish" is quite the achievement for a man. If the woman does NOT want to "obey" then don't expect "Cherish" I suppose. I would love to be cherished and would replace "honour and obey" with "honour and cherish" as well. Giving and Receiving are equally important in a relationship. "Giving" speaks for itself and we all love to give, but have learned that "receiving " is as important and a gift you "share" with each other. Any thoughts?  | |
|
| To love, honor, and... OBEY?!?
Posted: 4/20/2008 9:28:36 PM |
but have learned that "receiving " is as important and a gift you "share" with each other. Any thoughts? I love to receive! | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
