Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 Here's where the internet sucks: in deep conversations, such as this, there is no in between small talk, a quick interruption and "please explain this or that". on the net, you gotta get out all your thoughts in one chunk and wait for replies. Sometimes, a quick clarification to someone sitting next to you changes everything about the preception of the remark. And, there is so much going on here, I can barely keep up! But I feel it is ALL great discussion! And I appreciate everyone's civility in such a diverse and deep topic-pool. I was being completely literal when I said I can never know the connection that is created from birthing. Same as when women say, "You'll never know the pain of childbirth!!!" Right. We wont. Nor will we know the spiritual/physical connection to that life since we didn't birth it. OF COURSE I can make a wonderful connection with my baby, our entire life, be supportive, loving, nurturing, be a great father, all of that. Of course. That should go without having to specify it... what I CAN'T do is fully grasp the CONNECTION from giving birth to a child. I said exactly what I meant on that one. I guess if we had to keep score, men are one down: no children. So, we PROVIDE for purpose. Women can make children AND they can also PROVIDE if they want. Choices. We men don't have that. It's provide or lose. And some men do, unfortunately, lose. I should like to ask ZENGIRL, why do you think you loose more young MEN into gangs than Women? interesting to hear what that is about. And "Sexist"? Men and women fall into "sexist" groups already, so me just pointing out the obvious stuff isn't sexist at all. I guess it is just "Statistical" I'll make more sexist remarks here: - I see way more men than women in pro football - I see way more women than men as thier cheerleaders - I see more men than women in combat - I see more women than men dancing ballet Why is that? Am I being sexist? I guess I am asking why do these separations seem to gravitate by themselves naturally, yet we fight for the right for little Bobby to wear pink? Some roles are simply natural. Why fight them? Women will gravitate to having children (not ALL women, let's not keep going there) since they are the only ones who can, and men gravitate to PROVIDING. Why is that? If things are so different, and roles are sexism, why do these types of roles gravitate by themselves? It is easy to look around and see lots of children... that's not the men doing that guarenteed. And JESSEJAMES thank you for joining this discussion. I don't know if we agree on everything or not and it doesn't matter. Just having you in here jumping in takes some of the load off me. So, thanks!
zengirl Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 I should like to ask ZENGIRL, why do you think you loose more young MEN into gangs than Women? interesting to hear what that is about. It's not really a mystery. I work with kids in a poor neighborhood, and I more often lose young men to gangs than young women. Not just me (male or female) -- anyone who works with the at-risk group I do that I know. Gangs seem to have more allure to young women than gangs (or other social problems, like teen pregnancy, which do claim many of the young women I work with too) do to young women. The reasons why re: Gangs seem obvious. The reasons why it's easier for me to convince a young woman to go to college in those situations than it is to convince a young man. . . I'm not entirely sure. I just know it is. And that it's not just me --- it's the systems and support nets we have in place. Many girls fall through too.
JesseJames Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 "I was being completely literal when I said I can never know the connection that is created from birthing. Same as when women say, "You'll never know the pain of childbirth!!!" Right. We wont. Nor will we know the spiritual/physical connection to that life since we didn't birth it." I knew that's what you meant. I was waiting to see where that was going to go with others. lol And, I do enjoy this topic greatly, but I am tiring. Pleasure.
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 on a side note... I'm not married, not looking, not even dating right now, but will do that soon.... I'm not sterile, I don't hate children, I don't have any, not concerned if I do or not, was not offended by any of the remarks and as far as women not saying what they really mean... EXHIBIT A: Yes, it is just a fictional movie, but that movie has so much truth and reality in it, ya gotta think that actually happens like that. The basis of this thread is "Do women have this desire to be cared for, problem and stress free?" KEPT might not have been the best word. Women not saying what they REALLY mean is part of admitting or not or denying or not feelings deep down in side. I never said ALL women feel it, just that sometimes they don't always say what they mean. I was asking because ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the short list of women I got to know deeply DID desire that, or some of it. Sally obviously hate Harry deeply. I think she was trying to kill him by sucking his heart out through his mouth. Gross.
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 Do most RomComs end with women saying what they don't mean?? hahaha http://youtu.be/PIooj9qxl0w?t=1m29s
udolipixie Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) To me him being sterile doesn't change that he can be more than a provider/paycheck and that his role/purpose isn't just a provider/paycheck. You don't have to have children or even want children to think your role/purpose in life can be more than being a provider/paycheck. When did I state, imply, or suggest that adoption is the same as creating life? "I got that she was saying he can know the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that creating a life can bring. The child could come from his girlfriend, wife, surrogate, or adoption." You're misquoting as those came from two separate posts. Not unsurprising that misquoting and twisting words would be the only way you'd be able to show anyway that I put adoption is the same as creating life. Post#1 Okay. This is getting silly to me now and I have to say something. What seems silly to me is that I didn't get that she was telling a man that he can or cannot procreate like women. I got that she was saying he can know the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that creating a life can bring. That he can be more than a provider and/or that he can have a great or just a great as role in caring for what was procreated. She even underlined it in her response. I can not PHYSICALLY create a life out of my own body, no. This is why we are not equal. I can NEVER KNOW the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that can bring. I can only find that from a job and purpose by providing for my wife. Yes you can. You have to believe yourself capable and seek it out. Just like women had to do in the work force. Don't hold yourself back with these antiquated concepts. You can be more than a paycheck. If you don't try to be more though, it is you that makes you only a guy with a job and a paycheck. I have known amazing fathers. Even single fathers with sole custody. What do you think a man does if his wife dies? He steps up to the plate and discovers he can be more than just a man with a paycheck. If he doesn't it isn't because he, being a man, was not capable. It means he didn't try. post #2 So, pray tell, where is this child that brings such purpose andaccomplishment? coming from again? LOL Again, just leave it alone. The child could come from his girlfriend, wife, surrogate, or adoption. Seems like you don't want to see or be open to that she wasn't telling a man that he can or cannot procreate like women as you claimed. She can clarify if she was or wasn't. I got that she was saying he can know the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that creating a life can bring. That he can be more than a provider and/or that he can have a great or just a great as role in caring for what was procreated. She even underlined what she was responding to in her response. I can not PHYSICALLY create a life out of my own body, no. This is why we are not equal. I can NEVER KNOW the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that can bring. I can only find that from a job and purpose by providing for my wife. Edited April 21, 2012 by udolipixie
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 But I did not BIRTH this child so that HALF of life is something I can never know. Women: birth mom / providing Men: ________ / providing We got nothing on the BLANK side. This thread dumbs it down to wondering about roles on either side. Men have no other side.... at the core of this. Yes, there are million things we can do to feel purpose, giving birth then staying home with MY child is not one of them.
udolipixie Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 But I did not BIRTH this child so that HALF of life is something I can never know. You providing the genetic material for this child is something you may know. That I don't have male genitals to impregnate a woman is something I may never know. Women: birth mom / providing Men: ________ / providing We got nothing on the BLANK side. This thread dumbs it down to wondering about roles on either side. Men have no other side.... at the core of this. To me you've got father on the blank side. Some people even state birth father as a man may be the genetic material for a child but not considered legally the father or guardian. Though I do guess those that view men as walking wallets/ATMs and in favor of the sometimes bias child support and child custody laws would agree to your mindset. Yet interestingly enough I often get it's feminism, modernism, and misandry that promotes this man = wallet and diminish fatherhood when I find it's traditionalism and conservatism mindsets that portray that. Yes, there are million things we can do to feel purpose, giving birth then staying home with MY child is not one of them. Giving the genetic material so the child can be born and saying home with your child may be one of them. To me the saying home bit would be dependent on what partner and lifestyle you chose.
JesseJames Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 "Women will gravitate to having children (not ALL women, let's not keep going there) since they are the only ones who can, and men gravitate to PROVIDING. Why is that?" It used to be a ton of work to have kids and provide--it still is. And since the life expectancy was like 30, they did things at a young age. Youths require structure since experience doesn't exist. So, simple structure, one that gets passed generation to generation and taught through example. "If things are so different, and roles are sexism, why do these types of roles gravitate by themselves? It is easy to look around and see lots of children... that's not the men doing that guaranteed." I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I wager on the human condition. It's a vicious cycle of cooperation and competition. Right now, competition is fierce in every respect and there's little for pure cooperation, so things having to be done are more and more tending to get done by a single person instead of a couple or tribe.
zengirl Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 But I did not BIRTH this child so that HALF of life is something I can never know. Women: birth mom / providing Men: ________ / providing I really, personally, don't think popping a kid out is even CLOSE to half of parenting. I don't think that's actually parenting at all. Plenty of people birth kids they never parent, and plenty of people parent kids they never gave birth to (not just dads either). I think you're simply overestimating that in putting it as part of parenting --- I'm not saying it's not a valuable, painful, important experience. It's obviously crucial to the species in a number of ways. It's just not crucial to being a parent. At all. Nor does it necessarily produce a stronger bond or more nurturing instincts.
JesseJames Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 "To me him being sterile doesn't change that he can be more than a provider/paycheck and that his role/purpose isn't just a provider/paycheck. You don't have to have children or even want children to think your role/purpose in life can be more than being a provider/paycheck." Congratulations. Any mongoloid will be happy to hear your revelations. "You're misquoting as those came from two separate posts. Not unsurprising that misquoting and twisting words would be the only way you'd be able to show anyway that I put adoption is the same as creating life." I've never twisted your words, nor have I ever misquoted you. I take the whole conversation into consideration like any other sane and reasonable person does. Any person that can read can easily see all of your stated words and come to the same conclusion as I did and should have. Are you done crying about nothing now? Are you going to contribute something else now?
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 To me you've got father on the blank side. you've got my attention. Let's roll with that! k, so this thread is asking if WOMEN would like to be kept and pampered.... but we don't have a thread of women asking MEN if they would like to be. hang with me here... so, where I'm going with this, is a natural role definition that happens by DEFAULT: woman gives birth, stays home to nurture it, man provides SHE has that choice to be a SAHM and/or also provide, or be the sole provider. Man doesn't have that choice so much as there are not women beating down the doors offering to take care of Stay At Home Dads, and not that many SugarMommies viepercentages either. The FATHER side is kind of a ghost or false choice. I, personally, don't equate the genetic material donation on ANY LEVEL compared to growing and baring a child. So, with all this in play, why is it that these "sexist" roles still exist and are separated by sexes? Man hunts, woman nests. Why is it STILL slanted the same way there are more female cheerleaders and male football stars? Why do these "sexist" roles keep persisting? Is it because it is naturally that way?
JesseJames Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 you've got my attention. Let's roll with that! k, so this thread is asking if WOMEN would like to be kept and pampered.... but we don't have a thread of women asking MEN if they would like to be. hang with me here... so, where I'm going with this, is a natural role definition that happens by DEFAULT: woman gives birth, stays home to nurture it, man provides SHE has that choice to be a SAHM and/or also provide, or be the sole provider. Man doesn't have that choice so much as there are not women beating down the doors offering to take care of Stay At Home Dads, and not that many SugarMommies viepercentages either. The FATHER side is kind of a ghost or false choice. I, personally, don't equate the genetic material donation on ANY LEVEL compared to growing and baring a child. So, with all this in play, why is it that these "sexist" roles still exist and are separated by sexes? Man hunts, woman nests. Why is it STILL slanted the same way there are more female cheerleaders and male football stars? Why do these "sexist" roles keep persisting? Is it because it is naturally that way? Two million years says part by default and part the rest of the possibilities. lol 1
sally4sara Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 y Why is it STILL slanted the same way there are more female cheerleaders and male football stars? Why do these "sexist" roles keep persisting? Is it because it is naturally that way? Pro football doesn't allow female players. To answer your question we would have to seek out a human inhabited planet that never removed options from any gender or did so in reverse. When you find that planet, you'll find your answer. Till then all I see are self defeating and/or self serving assumptions based on a rigged game.
JesseJames Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 What "role" baffles the hell outta me is how so many women want to own the whole procreation/sex realm. They try to tell men that you can have a kid, somehow, maybe the stork brings it for you. They try to make believe that modern technology doesn't exist and that the only competition that exists during this pursuit of this greatest life prospect is man vs. man--then they turn around and say they don't want a man nor need a man. They use men for sex, whenever they desire, then turn around and wonder why men are only after their wombs. They use sex as some type of reward for a man. They will say they fight for this "equality", but never touch on matters of procreation. The list goes on and on and on. Women? Why do you always have to try to completely own procreation/sex? That's really really weird. Wouldn't it be cool if men had a few more options than the women regarding sex/procreation? I'd bet the answer is a resounding no, we really don't care about the needs of men, because we are women with more options, and we'll do as we please irrespective of anything in the multiverse and until the last drop of water.
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 Pro football doesn't allow female players. To answer your question we would have to seek out a human inhabited planet that never removed options from any gender or did so in reverse. When you find that planet, you'll find your answer. Till then all I see are self defeating and/or self serving assumptions based on a rigged game. Come on... extrapolate with me a little bit.... where are the Woman's Pro football leagues or Male cheer leading squads? Instead of an external planet, we could seek out totally primative tribes that have both sexes in them, aren't clouded with OUR silly society and customs, and see what happens within their basic role systems. Men hunt, women nest (Of course, class of 2012, there are always exceptions) Why are we fighting against our obvious reality: that "sexist" roles exist by default, whether we choose to admit it or believe it or not. We ARE self defeating saying "a woman can be everything a man can be"... yeah? Where are the woman's football leagues, the Woman's UFC, the majority populated woman's army? All those women that are stepping up to hand over the child rearing duties to the stay home daddys while she goes to work 14 hour days? And "A man can be everything a woman can be"... yeah? Where's that one guy in all of history that carried a child for 9 months and then gave birth? where is that majority count of stay home dads? Where is a man who's monthly chemical imbalance makes him go from laughing to crying and regretting life in less than a minute? The answer is so obvious. Are we so used to it, we completely miss the so overly obvious that stares us in the face every day? MEN AND WOMEN WILL NEVER BE EQUAL. Never. So, all this talk about "I can do what a man does" or "he can do like I do" or "she can do what I do" is all crap, because STATISTICS PROVE STEREOTYPICAL ROLES ALREADY EXIST ON THEIR OWN, have been around thousands of years, and aren't going to change anytime soon, or at least until men can give birth. and THAT is why women may choose a kept role if they so desired and we can't. End of Thread! THANK YOU, I'll be here all week. Please be sure to tip your waitress. G'Night!
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 What "role" baffles the hell outta me is how so many women want to own the whole procreation/sex realm. They try to tell men that you can have a kid, somehow, maybe the stork brings it for you. They try to make believe that modern technology doesn't exist and that the only competition that exists during this pursuit of this greatest life prospect is man vs. man--then they turn around and say they don't want a man nor need a man. They use men for sex, whenever they desire, then turn around and wonder why men are only after their wombs. They use sex as some type of reward for a man. They will say they fight for this "equality", but never touch on matters of procreation. The list goes on and on and on. Women? Why do you always have to try to completely own procreation/sex? That's really really weird. Wouldn't it be cool if men had a few more options than the women regarding sex/procreation? I'd bet the answer is a resounding no, we really don't care about the needs of men, because we are women with more options, and we'll do as we please irrespective of anything in the multiverse and until the last drop of water. hahaha dude, I like what you say, but the way you say it is probably gonna ruffle some feathers. I think you nailed a key point saying "options". The women are saying we have options, like being a father, but I dont see how that "role" compares with being a mother? I can't simply CHOOSE to be a mother. Physical birthing aside, I STILL can't be a mother. It's like rock choosing to be a mountain... doesn't matter what it wants, it just isn't realistically happening. If women CHOOSE to work full time or CHOOSE to be kept or CHOOSE a little of both, that's cool. But... really..... where is OUR choice? We HAVE TO provide... if even for ourselves. A woman can choose to let someone else provide for her (a role men are more than happy to do mostly) Don't get me wrong, I'm happy as a man, enjoy my role and live to give, but all this flap about sexist role calling and such.... there is nothing any of us can do about it. It is there. Stats prove it, not just some guy on the internet. Live in that reality and enjoy the option: you COULD be a happy Princess if you felt like it.
sally4sara Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 What "role" baffles the hell outta me is how so many women want to own the whole procreation/sex realm. They try to tell men that you can have a kid, somehow, maybe the stork brings it for you. They try to make believe that modern technology doesn't exist and that the only competition that exists during this pursuit of this greatest life prospect is man vs. man--then they turn around and say they don't want a man nor need a man. They use men for sex, whenever they desire, then turn around and wonder why men are only after their wombs. They use sex as some type of reward for a man. They will say they fight for this "equality", but never touch on matters of procreation. The list goes on and on and on. Women? Why do you always have to try to completely own procreation/sex? That's really really weird. Wouldn't it be cool if men had a few more options than the women regarding sex/procreation? I'd bet the answer is a resounding no, we really don't care about the needs of men, because we are women with more options, and we'll do as we please irrespective of anything in the multiverse and until the last drop of water. Well bless your little heart but at least you are able to admit why you're so angry and envious of women. Women too had envy when they were being kept from options only given to men. The difference here is there was no valid reason for women to be denied those options. What you're upset about is biology and there isn't much to be done to help you one day become pregnant and give birth. Unless you're saying women should give up ownership of their bodies as some apology to men for being the only gender able to give birth. Wouldn't that be like saying "well poo, I can't tan as dark as a black person can so they should only hold outdoor labor jobs making it so I never have to expose my inferior pigmentation to UV rays and be reminded that I burn more easily in the sun than they do! Its only fair that way!" Oh wait. We did that **** already. It was called slavery. You are asking to be a slaver and that makes you completely disgusting. 1
udolipixie Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 I've never twisted your words, nor have I ever misquoted you. To me you did misquote me by taking sentences from two separate posts and quoting it as one thing when asked for where did I state that adoption is the same as creating life. I take the whole conversation into consideration like any other sane and reasonable person does. Yet even when you take the whole conversation into consideration do I state, suggest, or imply that adoption is the same as creating life. Not even in the part you misquote. Are you done crying about nothing now? Exactly when was I crying about nothing? So are you going to show me where I stated that adoption is the same as creating life as you claimed? Are you going to contribute something else now? Doesn't seem so you'd rather insult and use ad hominens. Any person that can read can easily see all of your stated words and come to the same conclusion as I did and should have. Any other people care to see from all my stated words how someone could come to the conclusion that he did that I stated adoption is the same as creating life? Post#1 Okay. This is getting silly to me now and I have to say something. What seems silly to me is that I didn't get that she was telling a man that he can or cannot procreate like women. I got that she was saying he can know the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that creating a life can bring. That he can be more than a provider and/or that he can have a great or just a great as role in caring for what was procreated. She even underlined it in her response. I can not PHYSICALLY create a life out of my own body, no. This is why we are not equal. I can NEVER KNOW the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that can bring. I can only find that from a job and purpose by providing for my wife. Yes you can. You have to believe yourself capable and seek it out. Just like women had to do in the work force. Don't hold yourself back with these antiquated concepts. You can be more than a paycheck. If you don't try to be more though, it is you that makes you only a guy with a job and a paycheck. I have known amazing fathers. Even single fathers with sole custody. What do you think a man does if his wife dies? He steps up to the plate and discovers he can be more than just a man with a paycheck. If he doesn't it isn't because he, being a man, was not capable. It means he didn't try. Post#2 So, pray tell, where is this child that brings such purpose andaccomplishment? coming from again? LOL Again, just leave it alone. The child could come from his girlfriend, wife, surrogate, or adoption. Seems like you don't want to see or be open to that she wasn't telling a man that he can or cannot procreate like women as you claimed. She can clarify if she was or wasn't. I got that she was saying he can know the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that creating a life can bring. That he can be more than a provider and/or that he can have a great or just a great as role in caring for what was procreated. She even underlined what she was responding to in her response. I can not PHYSICALLY create a life out of my own body, no. This is why we are not equal. I can NEVER KNOW the connection or feeling of accomplishment or purpose that can bring. I can only find that from a job and purpose by providing for my wife.
sally4sara Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 hahaha dude, I like what you say, but the way you say it is probably gonna ruffle some feathers. I think you nailed a key point saying "options". The women are saying we have options, like being a father, but I dont see how that "role" compares with being a mother? I can't simply CHOOSE to be a mother. Physical birthing aside, I STILL can't be a mother. It's like rock choosing to be a mountain... doesn't matter what it wants, it just isn't realistically happening. If women CHOOSE to work full time or CHOOSE to be kept or CHOOSE a little of both, that's cool. But... really..... where is OUR choice? We HAVE TO provide... if even for ourselves. A woman can choose to let someone else provide for her (a role men are more than happy to do mostly) Don't get me wrong, I'm happy as a man, enjoy my role and live to give, but all this flap about sexist role calling and such.... there is nothing any of us can do about it. It is there. Stats prove it, not just some guy on the internet. Live in that reality and enjoy the option: you COULD be a happy Princess if you felt like it. If we had a world where women were always afforded the same options men had we could definitively say what is and isn't a gender role or a gender tendency. Since we've never had that it is all speculation. Your line of thought on the matter would have you suggesting its a male role to be president because women tend not to be president. That would be a sexist belief because you're ignoring the fact that people are only now considering women for presidency and for a long time women were not afforded the opportunity. Do you also believe that it is a white man's role to be president because we've had more white men as presidents? 2
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 You are asking to be a slaver and that makes you completely disgusting. YOINK! hahahhahaha maybe I'm just tired, but this is a "wait what?" moment? Not sure how we got there at all but now I see this thread heading for a lock! Is there any prizes for number of largest threads locked in a week??
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 If we had a world where women were always afforded the same options men had we could definitively say what is and isn't a gender role or a gender tendency. Since we've never had that it is all speculation. Your line of thought on the matter would have you suggesting its a male role to be president because women tend not to be president. That would be a sexist belief because you're ignoring the fact that people are only now considering women for presidency and for a long time women were not afforded the opportunity. Do you also believe that it is a white man's role to be president because we've had more white men as presidents? I feel politics is a real bad place to go with this and I will refrain saying just that politics is now a "media circus" where as before it was not so now it is kinda completely different and unrelated to this thread. Unfortunately. I do know what you are saying but I'm not going there because it is politics and that will destroy this thread.
udolipixie Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 We ARE self defeating saying "a woman can be everything a man can be"... yeah? Where are the woman's football leagues, the Woman's UFC, the majority populated woman's army? All those women that are stepping up to hand over the child rearing duties to the stay home daddys while she goes to work 14 hour days? To me just because a woman can be everything a man can be doesn't mean she wants to or has to. The keyword is can it's optional. A woman's football league and UFC would take women who want to do so and an audience who wants to watch it. A majority populated woman's army would take some government reworking to me as petitions asking that women be included women in the draft have been denied. Apparently guys react badly to women dying in warfare. There are women who hand over the child rearing duties to the stay home dads. There are also many women who are acting in accordance to your definition of the male role being the provider/paycheck by working and handing their paychecks over to a nanny/babysitter to rear their child. And "A man can be everything a woman can be"... yeah? Where's that one guy in all of history that carried a child for 9 months and then gave birth? where is that majority count of stay home dads? Where is a man who's monthly chemical imbalance makes him go from laughing to crying and regretting life in less than a minute? So while men get football leagues, UFC, and government positions women are walking carriers for babies and emotional... MEN AND WOMEN WILL NEVER BE EQUAL. Never. Just as all men will likely never be equal. Plenty of guys more handsome than other guys, more intelligent than other guys, bigger below than other guys Just as all women will likely never be equal. Plenty of gals more pretty than other gals and more intelligent than other gals. Though it is interesting that to many men when the question of humans not being equal it's only to the genders. Rarely do they think men are not equal or the races aren't equal. Inequality seems limited to the genders for many men. So, all this talk about "I can do what a man does" or "he can do like I do" or "she can do what I do" is all crap, because STATISTICS PROVE STEREOTYPICAL ROLES ALREADY EXIST ON THEIR OWN, have been around thousands of years, and aren't going to change anytime soon, or at least until men can give birth. I would think that stereotypical roles changing would take more than men giving birth. Such as women being biologically just as strong as men or vice versa, women not having periods or men having periods, women having the same chemical balance as men or men having the same chemical balance as women. Or just redefining what is feminine/masculine and what it means to be a man/woman. and THAT is why women may choose a kept role if they so desired and we can't. Many men and women can choose a kept role. Whether it's desirable or not is a toss up. In terms of desirable I'm speaking as to marrying someone in trade of your youth/beauty of whatever factor in exchange for being kept.
udolipixie Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 I think you nailed a key point saying "options". The women are saying we have options, like being a father, but I dont see how that "role" compares with being a mother? Both are parents. Both if they're biological mothers/fathers provided the genetic material to create the child. I can't simply CHOOSE to be a mother. You can simply choose to be a father depending on fertility. Get a gf who also wishes to be a mother and impregnate her. Get a wife who also wishes to be a mother and impregnate her. Get a surrogate and be the legal guardian aka father of the child. Get a child from an adoption agency. Those are options to being a father. Physical birthing aside, I STILL can't be a mother. It's like rock choosing to be a mountain... doesn't matter what it wants, it just isn't realistically happening. You can't be a mother but you can be a father depending on fertility. If women CHOOSE to work full time or CHOOSE to be kept or CHOOSE a little of both, that's cool. But... really..... where is OUR choice? We HAVE TO provide... if even for ourselves. A woman can choose to let someone else provide for her (a role men are more than happy to do mostly) Men can have the same options depending on their desirability. I know plenty of "boy toys" that are kept. I know plenty of stay at home dads. To me men and women's options in this regard depend on desirability. As well as how desirable the options are depends on.their desirability. There likely aren't many desirable options that would want to have an overweight unattractive older woman as a kept woman. Our experiences I don't men mostly being more than happy to provide for a woman in America. I do see many American men calling women gold diggers, parasites, evil, money grubbing whores, prostitutes, and etc for engaging in what you describe. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy as a man, enjoy my role and live to give, but all this flap about sexist role calling and such.... there is nothing any of us can do about it. It is there. Stats prove it, not just some guy on the internet. Live in that reality and enjoy the option: you COULD be a happy Princess if you felt like it. Whether what one person defines as being a happy princess fits what you imagine is most likely where the sexist role calling occurs. As well as the enjoy the option statement.
Author wwwjd Posted April 21, 2012 Author Posted April 21, 2012 Such as women being biologically just as strong as men I actually considered bringing that up, but I don't have any data on it either way so I didn't. I kind of assume men hold the weight lifting records, but don't know for sure. More proof we are not equals. neither better or worse, but not equal, just different. udolipixie, I may have missed it 5 pages ago, but what was your answer? Could you find happiness allowing a man the gift of loving and supporting you fully and happily? with him wanting you to do all you want, or as little as you want? as long as everyone is happy, commited and content?
Recommended Posts