musemaj11 Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Yep. Basically. I have no idea why a woman would want to be dependent on a man to take care of them. That does nothing but complicate things and will get you screwed. Its not about being dependent. Its about being selfish. I cant imagine relying on someone else to singlehandedly carry all the financial burden and the stress of ensuring not only her own, but also my survival. I would feel like a parasite and I wouldnt be able to live with myself taking advantage of some else like that. I don't think any woman actually wants to be a stay at home wife nowadays. Because few men want a housewife nowadays. Most of the women I know don't choose to become housewives. The decision for the woman to stay at home is usually a joint decision made by the man and the woman. How about stay-at-home fathers then? Are those men selfish, lazy bastards too? Nearly all women volunteer to and expect to be the ones taking care of their newborn babies. A man who tells a woman that he wants to be the one taking care of their future baby while she works is highly unlikely to ever get to see her again. So in actuality its more of a premade decision than a joint decision. And yes I view a man who expects to be a stay at home husband a lazy selfish bastard. I'm so fed up with the PC Cultural Dominance that has everyone demanding a 50-50 relationship, apples to apples. I'm not going to keep on adjusting my "performance" to make it even...if I even once start giving/feeling/creating less because I was "given less" or vice versa, give more to get more, then it is just another damn transaction. No one is stopping you to give more while getting less. But I bet thats not what you want. Of course by not wanting 'equal transaction' you meant you want to get more while giving less. I really didn't earn any right to serve in the military; it was an opportunity, and I went and earned the opportunity to serve. I did not notice any labellers sweating beside me in boot camp! Lol, I have friends in the military and they all tell me that women in armed forces are just a waste of space! Without the PC Culture that you hate so much, there won't be such a thing as opportunity for women to serve in the military. Just like all other armies in the world that ban women, the US military also recognize that women are useless assets. Yet they have no choice but to abide to Political Correctness. I would and I have defended your right to live free. Thank you for cooking for the troops and keeping their stomachs filled up at all times.
Taramere Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Lol, I have friends in the military and they all tell me that women in armed forces are just a waste of space! Without the PC Culture that you hate so much, there won't be such a thing as opportunity for women to serve in the military. Just like all other armies in the world that ban women, the US military also recognize that women are useless assets. Yet they have no choice but to abide to Political Correctness. Thank you for cooking for the troops and keeping their stomachs filled up at all times. It's incorrect to suggest that "all other armies in the world" ban women. There are, however, problems associated with women serving in the army...including the likelihood of them being unable to fulfil duties due to pregnancy, Islamic militants refusing to surrender to women and male soldiers losing control (due to the protective instinct kicking in when they see a female colleague get injured). Here's wiki with some of the pros and cons, and common debates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military However, for your friends in the US military to say that women in the armed forces are a "waste of space" is grossly unfair to those women whose courage and coolness under fire has saved the lives of colleagues http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8251240.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6476635.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-11717615 I'm sure if any of those three wanted unequal/traditional relationships with men,they would just go off and have them without making an enormous fuss about it, though. It seems unlikely that genuine heroines who had carried out life saving work under enemy fire would bang on about such a choice, as though having that kind of relationship requires great heroism in the face of immense oppression from feminist forces, rather than being a personal decision that any woman is free to take. So one thing I do agree with you on is that if the OP was in the armed forces, she was likely more of a hindrance than a help to her colleagues. Certainly if she's this prone to creating problems where there needn't be any and being caught up in some childish and self-involved "I'm a victim of feminism - it's trying to stop me from having the kind of relationship I want" attitude. Edited November 4, 2011 by Taramere
betterdeal Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 http://www.maxim.com/amg/girls/girls-of-maxim/3518/israeli-defense-forces.html?slideNumber=3 What a Gaza strip! She can occupy my West Bank any time!
musemaj11 Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) It's incorrect to suggest that "all other armies in the world" ban women. You misunderstood me. I meant to say the countries that ban women. Not that all other countries beside the US military ban women. There are, however, problems associated with women serving in the army...including the likelihood of them being unable to fulfil duties due to pregnancy, Islamic militants refusing to surrender to women and male soldiers losing control (due to the protective instinct kicking in when they see a female colleague get injured). Here's wiki with some of the pros and cons, and common debatesExactly. My friends who serve in the army who oppose the inclusion of women simply reason that war is a serious business and the effectiveness of the armed forces should be the priority and not be compromised for the sake of political correctness. They say the presence of female soldiers add nothing but unnecessary dramas into the military. For example just notice what happened everytime a female soldier was taken hostage. It always drew huge attention and created huge uproar among the public which often forced the military to turn some of its attention toward the situation rather than focusing its full attention of the main mission. However, for your friends in the US military to say that women in the armed forces are a "waste of space" is grossly unfair to those women whose courage and coolness under fire has saved the lives of colleaguesWhen I said women in the army are a waste of space, I merely exaggerated. I think the more correct description is that most often than not, they are an inconvenience that should not be considered except as a last resort such as those Russian female snipers during WWII who were conscripted because the Soviets simply needed all the manpower they could get. Edited November 4, 2011 by musemaj11
Metis Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) My friends who serve in the army who oppose the inclusion of women simply reason that war is a serious business and the effectiveness of the armed forces should be the priority and not be compromised for the sake of political correctness. My friends who serve in the army who support the inclusion of women simply reason that war is serious business, and the effectiveness of the armed forces should be the priority and not be compromised for the sake of men's psychological defects and casual misogyny. Women deal with "serious business" every day of our lives, in all spheres of it. We do not show incompetence at any of it any more than men do. Medicine is serious business; women do just fine as doctors and nurses. Law is serious business; women do just fine as lawyers and judges (and in fact, there is strong evidence to suggest that female judges are a lot less likely than male judges to let a defendant's gender affect their sentencing decisions). Science is serious business; women excel at science and technical fields when given the chance. Raising children and taking care of families is serious business; women have been doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in that arena since the dawn of time. So spare us. Edited November 4, 2011 by Metis
Raybork Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) HopelessRomantic76 I run a relationship and dating advice blog and I have mostly tended to ramble on about the virtues of equality in relationships. Your post, as well as the responses has made me reappraise my point of view. I will now be writing a blog post on the topic. If you are the same poster who has posted a similar question on another site, would it be possible to private message you?, I have a question( nothing underhand or against Loveshack guidelines). Edited November 12, 2011 by Raybork several mistakes in sentence
Disenchantedly Yours Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 I used be the same way. However, it always came down me and most artistic women having very different values. Things like saving vs spending money, lifestyle issues, ideas about children and marriage, etc. It turns out that I am only free-spirited to a certain point. I found myself to be much more compatible with my current practical gf. Hopefully it works out for you though. True..we are one step away from painting all the dogs in the park hot pink, setting fire to our hair and dumping out are bank accounts on helping Uganda children make hearts out of tabacco leaves and fabulous shoes. I'm just teasing you Sanman.
ThsAmericanLife Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 Maybe the OP is looking for this kind of relationship... It's called "Taken in Hand" I took a stroll through their pages awhile back... Trying to understand what could possibly be appealing about anything close to what the OP and some other folks who insist on strict gender-based roles are talking about. http://www.takeninhand.com/an.overview.of.taken.in.hand They lost me when they started going on and on about rape being a 'gift'. It seems more for S&M types who don't want to be considered sexual deviants... or perhaps an offshoot of religious right dogma for those who aren't necessarily Christians. whatever floats their boats... not my thing.
SincereOnlineGuy Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 f I wanted a relationship between equals, I would have to switch teams and play in the all-female tournaments. I want a relationship with someone who is so different from me that I can never be what he is. I don't want to be what he is. I just want to enjoy that he wants me, and I really want to enjoy admiring him for the man that he is. I'm so fed up with the PC Cultural Dominance that has everyone demanding a 50-50 relationship, apples to apples. Any kind of equality demands measurement and comparison and constant adjustment to mandate the illusion of fairness. I don't want to keep score...I refuse to compare a man to me or me against a man ever again....I'm not going to keep on adjusting my "performance" to make it even...if I even once start giving/feeling/creating less because I was "given less" or vice versa, give more to get more, then it is just another damn transaction. What would a relationship be like for you if you just threw the illusion of equality out the window and did whatever you wanted to do with/for and yes! TO the person? but more than that, I DO wish for a man in my life who I trust to be smarter and stronger than I am. I have no idea why. I'm smart enough and strong enough to make almost anything I need to happen, happen. Along with the smarter and stronger, I'll need to know that he has my best interest at heart, as I would his. " On the bright side, you are only living 4, 14, 40, or 70 years in the past, where some guys out there are living in the caveman era. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to find parters who are set in their ways, which were in turn passed down to them by 'traditional' parents. Indeed there is a revolution going on all around you, but obviously not all sides have joined the fight. Though I don't think you "are the 99%" (as they say). It's OK... particularly if you find someone who 'fits' your dynamic.
Recommended Posts