Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 42
Taken in Hand/Head of HouseholdPage 2 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
The fabric of any sustainable society is the extended family. The nuclear family is a modern invention that was only made possible by the industrial revolution.

You're a military guy. Do you ever deploy the entire force for an extended engagement, or do you maintain a pool of ready reserves? Don't you think that spreading the troops too thin is utterly stupid from a strategic perspective? Would you respect any General who operated that way as a matter of course? Would you follow an idiot like that? Well, why do you do it when structuring our social system. You say that charity can take care of those who fall behind, but where is that charity supposed to come from if not family?

The nuclear family model is an artifact of social engineering designed specifically to support large-scale factory production. There is nothing wrong with factory production when it is integrated into a sustainable social system. But what we've got here is a monster engine and the puniest clutch imaginable.

If you will consider the possibility that the rise of feminism could be a symptom of an unteneble social arrangement and not the sole cause of all our woes, we can get beyond this "is not is so" nonsense. I'm willing to consider that feminism has, in many ways, made things worse by going too far.

Match, you want to generalize from your Mom's good experience. I want to generalize from my Mom's bad experience. If we acknowledge the truth in both sets of experiences, and recognize that there might well have been a significant minority for whom marriage was a hostage situation and not a slice of heaven, we can come to a reasonable understanding. But wishing the ills of the old model away won't bring the good times back. You either deal with those ills honestly by coming up with a more workable model or you watch things fall apart with no viable alternatives. The genie is out of the bottle and you simply cannot stuff her back in there. And other than your own comfort and convenience, considering that the genie has rights, I can't imagine why you'd want to try.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 44
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/18/2010 8:50:34 PM
The problem with the old rules wasn't the prevalence of abuse. It was the lack of recourse that women had when abuse occurred. It wasn't until OJ got away with murder that the police started taking a problem as deadly to women as domestic violence at all seriously. The reason why it comes up in the discussion of male-dominated marriage is that when physical abuse occurred, it was generally the woman who appeared to get the worst of it, and it was generally considred to be her own fault for being disobedient.

Again, generalizing from your experience alone will only give you part of the picture. If you haven't worked with domestic violence cases you have no idea what hell a bad marriage can be.

If you want to go back to the Biblical model, then you should take it all the way back to the Jewish custom in which a marriage contract is really a prenuptial agreement that specifies what the wife will get in the event of a divorce.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/18/2010 8:51:41 PM
ZenBeth, notice how the husband and children praised her? Well, she earned that respect mightily. Obviously you did too. Kudo's for you!!!

This entitlement mentality of the feminists and other ist or ism movements have completely pulled the rug out from under mutual love and respect and turned it into one big he said/she said mumbo jumbo mess. If there is only one drivers seat, the minute you decide it's your right to drive, you've just taken away the right of the person that was driving. It's one thing to plan things out and to take turns and all, but to demand to suddenly become the default driver because you're "entitled to" just as much is wrong because it takes that job away from someone equally or better qualified that has already been doing it just fine all along and creates far too much unecessary chaos. There is absolutely nothing wrong with or demeaning about well defined roles, as long as there is plenty of flexability and give and take without completely disturbing the balance. It just doesn't look right for a woman to lead a dance. That would make us men feel like we were just another animal that has been tamed. That's not going to happen to me.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 46
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/18/2010 8:54:37 PM
It's one thing to plan things out and to take turns and all, but to demand to suddenly become the default driver because you're "entitled to" just as much is wrong because it takes that job away from someone equally or better qualified that has already been doing it just fine all along and creates far too much unecessary chaos.


How do you determine who is the most qualified? Biblical authority or demonstrated performance?


There is absolutely nothing wrong with or demeaning about well defined roles, as long as there is plenty of flexability and give and take without completely disturbing the balance. It just doesn't look right for a woman to lead a dance. That would make us men feel like we were just another animal that has been tamed. That's not going to happen to me.


Why should your wife allow that to happen to her? There are perfectly viable cultures in Africa where the women are expected to take the lead in courtship. They've been doing it that way for thousands of years. I'm sure that Paul meant well, but I am just as sure that his words have been used to justify all sorts of nonsense, including your sense of entitlement as a man--and mine. A leadership role has to be earned, and if the women have chosen not to follow us any more by default, they might just have their reasons. Have you ever spent an extended period of time home alone without adult company trying to raise children with no emotional support or advice? Do that for 5 years and then tell me how much you like it and how much you want that for your daughters.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/18/2010 9:09:21 PM
Ace, out on the ranch or on the farm, there is no question we are not equal and we are generally more suited for certain tasks by gender. Since men are generally stronger, when our strength is used to protect and serve, we are much more qualified as natural leaders. As in a dance, that leadership is necessary so that a couple can work in tandum.

In todays society it's not quite as clear cut mostly because of offices and white collar work, but I still don't see that many ladies in the type of construction I have done, although I keep running into them on the net anytime this subject comes up.

Now that money has become such a huge factor with the two income home prices, the role of provider and homemaker have been blurred considerably and there are a lot of role reversals taking place, but I honestly don't think women are looking for someone they can dominate. They may try and they may succeed, but when they do it's generally game over in many ways. I think they still want us to be real men. We just have to decide if we are going to cave in under the pressure or stand up and be counted if necessary.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 48
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/18/2010 9:53:40 PM
Since men are generally stronger, when our strength is used to protect and serve, we are much more qualified as natural leaders. As in a dance, that leadership is necessary so that a couple can work in tandum.


That would qualify us to be cops or soldiers--grunts--not necessarily leaders. Cooperation is necessary to work in tandem. Depending on the situation, one person might be better able to lead than another. And no, it is not the case that all females are dispositionally better suited to lead in situations involving child care, housekeeping, and nothing else. Get over it.


I honestly don't think women are looking for someone they can dominate.


Cooperation is not the same as domination. I don't see why any self-respecting woman would settle for domination in either direction. Do you?


They may try and they may succeed, but when they do it's generally game over in many ways. I think they still want us to be real men. We just have to decide if we are going to cave in under the pressure or stand up and be counted if necessary.


What is a "real" man? Isn't it just an image? If a woman tests men like that, maybe a guy's better off when the game's over. Let's see, if I remember right, Ward was a nice guy. So was Ozzie. So was Fred MacMurray's character in "My Three Sons." What sort of "real man" are you referring to? The Marlboro man? Dirty Harry? Our boy Clint can sure sell tickets--just like those phony models in Playboy sell magazines. Nobody mistakes them for "real women." Oh, they do? How 'bout that?

In the dance that Femme proposes, the roles are well defined by mutual agreement. No one is forced into them. A real man has the the good sense to rely on his partner where she's strong, count on himself where he is, and get help from others when neither of them have a handle on a particular situation. Anything less is a phony poser screwing things up. If that's what a "real woman" really wants, she can get it with somebody else.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/18/2010 11:30:06 PM
Blah blah blah blah blah. I've heard it all many many many times over Ace and nothing will sway me. Either you lead or you will be lead. There is no middle ground although it can be and should be as close to that as possible. I am not a remote hog, I cook and clean and take care of the yardwork. I even leave the toilet seat down in spite of the fact that I am entitled to keep it up on a 50/50 arrangement. I also sacrifice my body at work. I'm not on a power trip. I expect input and my SO taking the initiative regularly. There rarely are things that come up where there needs to be a unilateral decision, but when those cases do arise, it really sucks when there is resistance and an attitude of entitlement. If that really were the case the entitlement would go both ways and then who would ultimately be responsible? Two people can't hold the door open forever and accomplish anything productive. It helps to have a designated leader just to keep from complicating the simple.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/18/2010 11:51:22 PM

you want to generalize from your Mom's good experience.


I don't know what gives you that idea. I was offering some information I know firsthand that rebuts what you had claimed. I don't think the situation you're portraying is at all representative. I've never researched how satisfied people were with their marriages so-and-s0 many decades ago. But I detest the constant exaggeration of the shortcomings of every facet of traditional American culture. It has been spread like a stain through movies and other popular culture--I believe deliberately.

I often notice that "what everyone knows" about some aspect of our cultural history or other--what's been called the "received wisdom"--just ain't so. It's like hearing people say, as I once did at a dinner, that when Queen Victoria met U.S. Grant during the world tour he took after his presidency, she thought he was an unspeakable, stupid hick. Exactly the opposite was true--she was very pleasantly impressed, but the false version lets the person telling it seem worldly enough to look down their nose at America.

Millions of otherwise well-informed Americans apparently believe all sorts of things because a professor said them, or SNL alluded to them in a skit, or everyone at the party Saturday agreed they were true, or because Mr. Stone or Mr. Moore showed them in a movie. And the things they believe usually make American traditions look bad.

I think the over-the-top portrayals of the 1950's, for example, are that kind of subtle attack on our traditions. The tipoff is that the tone of the skit, ad, flashback to some TV character's childhood, etc. that's supposed to show what life was like then is so often supercilious and sneering. What you're supposed to take away is, "Look how wonderful life is now, compared to those sappy, hypocritical, oppressive, and just impossibly lame 'good' old days of Eisenhower, hard liquor, and the all-American booboisie, with their meat loaf, huge cars, lawns, and truly desperate housewives."

As far as what kind of society we live in, nothing is written. If everyone wanted to start dressing, talking, and acting like people did in the 1920's, nothing's stopping them. Within the limits of the law, our incomes, and our consciences, we can live as we please, just like people have always done.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 51
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 12:17:39 AM
I was offering some information I know firsthand that rebuts what you had claimed.


The fact that your Mom had one experience does not rebut the claim that other women had different experiences during the same era. The only way it could would be if you were to generalize and say that if it was good enough for your Mom it should be good enough for everyone else.

Women died of illegal abortions during that era. The cops did not intervene in domestic violence cases back then. A woman could not, in general, get a professional job aside from teaching, nursing, child care, or providing room and board.

It still comes down to rights. Do women have equal rights or not? And if they do, then we can no longer take our role as "leaders" for granted or as a given. We have to earn it on the basis of performance, not on the authority of tradition. It was once traditional for men to obey kings. But somehow, we came to the conclusion that, divine right or no, obeying a king would be un-American. If modern men have now been unkinged, perhaps it is for similar reasons of poor performance on the part of our predecessors. You know--the ones who used the same propaganda machine that you now decry to convince everyone that the nuclear family model was the modern way to live. They were so effective at it that Americans don't even have a memory of what an extended family is or how it functioned. Y'all think its "traditional," and "natural." Well, it is neither. It is a modern invention, an artifact of social engineering, and if anything is likely to set us up for an eventual socialist takeover, it's that faulty, fragile, unworkable, unsustainable model whose provenace y'all haven't bothered to examine.

Why you advocate for things you don't understand is beyond me. But every time you do it, you demonstrate how unqualified for leadership you are.


Within the limits of the law, our incomes, and our consciences, we can live as we please, just like people have always done.


You mean the ones who would be considered for jobs, don't you? And what of the others who were the wrong gender, color, religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, or marital status? Those laws were put in place for good reason, were they not?
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 5:50:35 AM
It still comes down to rights. Do women have equal rights or not?


I'm all for equal opportunity and equal pay or status for equal performance in the work place, volunteer work or whatever, regardless of race or gender.

However, men and women are not equal. Until they start putting urinals in homes so women can use them and the toilet seat is no longer an issue for either sex, we are not equal and we do not have equal rights. Add to that list sharing public restrooms at the same time and a whole other list of things we remain unequal in for good, well accepted reasons. We don't need girls in boy scouts.

Feminists are not satisfied with equality anyway. They want to take over. In a marriage, any time there is a power struggle over who should be in charge, it is like a two headed monster, it's an ugly scenario.

I didn't start this fight, but I'm certainly not going lay down and let feminazis rule our nation or the world or my home life.

Thankfully there are still some women that don't see a dress as a sign of weakness, but as something very special. Pants just aren't the same.
 kittybiscuit
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 54
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 7:43:59 AM
Wow.

You do not need script in order to live life. You do not need a set in stone leader as there is such a thing as compromise and well, being selective in the things you really want and cannot compromise on. In those cases where two minds cannot come to agreement, then perhaps the relationship is not such a good match (and these uncompromisable things should be important, like children or religion, not who takes out the garbage on Tuesday.)

Otherwise, it is just a battle of wills and both parties are being irresponsible, immature and incapable of understanding one another.

As for the topic at hand, what arrangements two people make amongst themselves is their business. I also think there is a distinct difference between the D/s or M/s dynamic than the traditional household and the two are getting confused.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 8:39:40 AM

we neva shudda gave Women the Right to Vote


At least one prominent woman agrees with you--Annie Coulter. I'm sure she'd gladly give up her own vote to cancel out a few million others. If not for the women's vote (and Ross Perot) we never would have had those horny hillbillies from Little Rock in the White House for eight years.
 gentlebear22
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 8:58:09 AM
The economy was in good shape during those years. Papa Bush and Junior Bush were party to of the biggest recessions ever.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 9:54:45 AM
So was Nancy Pelosi and both of our CA Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer who have been in office much longer...oh and certainly don't forget Maxine Waters.
 gentlebear22
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 11:04:44 AM
The President is in charge of the agenda or policies that are pushed along.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 11:41:28 AM
So you think? Hardly. Obama either has no clue what is going on or he has been lying consantly or both. Nancy and Harry have been getting away with the unthinkable for far too long.

But I'd hate see this thread derailed. I forget what that had to do with the topic lol
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 60
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 12:54:15 PM
I'm going to bring this back 'round to the topic, but I want to respond to Paul on the economy. First, thanks for acknowledging the culpability of both Bush administrations. During the Clinton years, hillbillies though they were, the economy rebounded. And yes, the House does control the budget, but the administration still drafts the budgets. When a company goes bankrupt, who gets blamed. The CEO or the Board? Even though the Board approves the management and its conduct, it's the CEO who is instrumentally responsible.

WRT taxes, Germany and Scandinavian governments appear to fare pretty well when it comes to higher taxes and an economy that their citizens seem happy with. So you can't exactly say that it doesn't work ever. I get it that you don't like the idea and believe it wouldn't work here. However, the Laffer curve's highest slope (ROI) is in the middle. If taxes are too low, raising them optimizes government income.

Keynsian investment in productive infrastructure is not necessarily inflationary. It depends on where the government spends the money. Investments with multipliers that beat the inflation rate will not be inflationary. They will add value faster than they add money to the supply. Whether or not bailing out the banks and GM were antiinflationary investments is an open question. I tend to doubt it. Jump-starting the green economy would allow us to substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and any gains we make in efficiency now will save us fuel costs down the line. As supply shrinks, those costs will only go up. Weaning ourselves from fossil fuels now is the most antiinflationary activity we could possibly undertake, because fuel itself is a commodity with a built-in cost increase. The more we burn now, the faster the marginal cost of all subsequent gallons will rise.

I think that one problem we have is that we don't have a net domestic profit calculation to tell us whether we're actually gaining as a whole or just spinning our wheels. At some point gains in efficiency will be seen as dollars added to the bottom line.

So, back to the topic. There is certainly a difference between a power-exchange lifestyle and the nuclear family lifestyle that was sold to us in the 40s and 50s. What I like about Femme's idea is that it is, fundamentally, consensual. So even if it looks exactly like an old-school conventional marriage from the outside, the experience will be very different. When someone entrusts you with authority as a deliberate gift and vote of confidence, it is a very different matter than when she just falls into her assigned role by default and expects you to "take the lead."
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 1:58:39 PM
Anyone that hasn't had to hire employees and run a legal business or hasn't earned 6 figures has no idea how heavy the tax burden already is. It's already extreme beyond insanity and has been for a very long time.

I know from experience, the difference between a good employee and a bad employee based on their willingness to cooperate vs. their obligation to cooperate and how that affects their performance. With the good employee things just go smoothly. With the bad employee everything is always a struggle. They are as different as night and day. I don't really know how to teach a bad employee how to become a good employee. I just know the difference. You can get a lot more done a lot quicker with a good employee.

The same holds true for any relationship. There needs to be willing cooperation in order for it to work. Once Feminization took hold and women found out they actually had it so bad as SAHM's and etc., and their willingness to cooperate diminished significantly it caused the divorce rate to sky rocket and created this entitlement society we now live in not to mention the two income household delmna for a singles population that has been increasing steadily.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 62
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 5:32:57 PM

I do have to totally disagree with you as far as kenysian practices being good sometimes. The US govt. has no business escept to stay out of the way of business. Period.


This is Chicago school, and it appears to me to be ideological cant. The efficient market assumption is an _assumption._ In any system that includes feedback, as economies do, conditions can arise that create a positive feedback loop rather than the dampening effect the invisible hand is supposed to provide.

Interstate highways: good or bad?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 63
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 5:39:26 PM

nyone that hasn't had to hire employees and run a legal business or hasn't earned 6 figures has no idea how heavy the tax burden already is. It's already extreme beyond insanity and has been for a very long time.


I have done both. Yes, it is a heavy burden. I don't like the fact that my money is being siphoned off to help the poor, but I like it even less that it is being siphoned off to bail out/protect the rich, who often won't give me the time of day. When was the last time a millionaire or wannabe took the time to show you personal courtesy?


Once Feminization took hold and women found out they actually had it so bad as SAHM's and etc., and their willingness to cooperate diminished significantly it caused the divorce rate to sky rocket and created this entitlement society we now live in not to mention the two income household delmna for a singles population that has been increasing steadily.


The entitlement society already existed. It used to take the form of racial and religious discrimination. Now it takes the form of class consciousness, though it did then too. If other people besides those who look like you and me now claim to be entitled, guess who they learned it from? For example, what is it exactly that entitles you to be the head of your household? Some might argue that two heads are not necessarily better than one. It really depends on which one you think with most often.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 64
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 7:07:21 PM
I like "talking" to you because you make me think.


Excellent! I appreciate very much your willingness to do so. You make me think as well, and I enjoy that very much! We'll have to hoist a brew to different perspectives one of these days.


Keynesian economic theory is like a fee......... Once it is spent, poof, any minor effect it may have had is GONE.


If spent on consumption or sunk costs (can you spell bailouts?) you are correct. But if the money is spent on productive infrastructure, no. That money generates future income streams that outpace the inflationary effect. The Interstate Highway system is more than just a necessary evil. It has opened the door to the biggest housing market we've ever seen, and that's just one of the economic benefits it produced. It was an awesome public investment. So was the Land Grant University system and the Agricultural Extenstion--paid for from the federal general fund. You do like eating good food, don't you?


Market efficiency or inefficiency is controlled by how hard the market comes down on the inefficient, in that the inefficient won't be able to keep up with the efficient. Does it always work that way? No, but while nothing in life is perfect, there are definetly those things that are way better than others


In segments of the economy that have multiple buyers and multiple sellers such that neither has disproportionate bargaining power, you are absolutely right. Segments that don't work that way have to be use other means for holding individuals accountable for their performance.


.................... Keynesian economic theory has proven itself to be ready for the dung heap where it belongs.


Funny, that's what Judge Posner is now saying about the Chicago School ideology, and he's a Chicago School professor.

Femme, you still with us here? Any thoughts you'd like to share?
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 7:16:21 PM

I have done both. Yes, it is a heavy burden. I don't like the fact that my money is being siphoned off to help the poor, but I like it even less that it is being siphoned off to bail out/protect the rich, who often won't give me the time of day. When was the last time a millionaire or wannabe took the time to show you personal courtesy?


Give me a royal break. I've met a lot of rich people in my line of work and very few of them were hot heads or mean spirited. It's the lower high income people in the $100K to $250 K range that I have seen with a worse attitude that I call sophmoric, but still nothing I don't see plenty of in the middle class. I'm sure that has something to do with the amount of taxes they have to pay which can be somewhere in the 40 to 50 percent range. So how are your taxes helping the rich BTW other than since Obama came into office?

As far as entitelments are concerned, the head of the houshold is not an entitlement, it's a huge responsibility. Entitlements don't take responsibilities.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 66
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 7:26:46 PM

I put it in the same category as the streetes and sewers in a city. Spending money on these type of projects and calling it a bailout is foolish.


Agreed. I wasn't calling it that. I was trying to indicate the difference between a good public investment and wasted public money. I think that the CA high-speed rail line is probably a make-work project, not a productive investment. OTOH, if it spurs development of maglev technology that has the potential for radically improving the efficiency of passenger transport, it could pan out after all.

If you'll subject the Chicago school ideology to the same degree of critical scrutiny that you give to Keynes, I'll be satisfied.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/19/2010 11:19:58 PM
Wow who'd a thunk? Roc is a gonner? Yowzer. I'm bummed big time.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 70
Taken in Hand/Head of Household
Posted: 1/20/2010 1:27:56 AM
Wow who'd a thunk? Roc is a gonner? Yowzer. I'm bummed big time.


Her account is still up.

This isn't the first time she's run afoul of the moderators. Probably won't be the last time either. I'd love to know what she said this time to land herself in banned camp!
Show ALL Forums  > California  >