women: would you like to be proteced and kept?

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

Women put on extra tribel paints, LESS loin cloth and dance the mating dance. And a very large percentage are hostly there to get f****d - this is known because a large percentage DO get f****d. And the guys only go because they know this. Yes, there is relationship mate selection going on there also.

 

Why does this keep going on? Why aren't all the clubs closed due to lack of business these days? Everywhere I have ever been, they are all doing extremely well on Friday and Saturday nights.

 

 

Well, we are animals, after all. We have a lot of raging hormones at times. We like to have sex. Lots of us also like to drink booze. Clubs are good for both of those things.

 

Club behavior doesn't define my life, though.

[wwwjd]

My hope is that all women and men realize the positive choices that they really do have and don't be enslaved to societal pressures, including traditional gender roles, to define the paths their lives will follow.

 

To thine own self be true.

 

HEAR HEAR!!

 

My impression as a man, though, is that desiring to be provided for is the WRONG way to be according to seen societal peer pressure and statements, even though (as this thread has circled around many, many times) men PROVIDING is a really big and important deal to us, deep down. (not EVERYBODY, you know....)

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

 

 

All the women that I have gotten to know on a deep, and I mean DEEP level, where we talk about why we are here, our purpose, feelings and all that, have ALL confessed (sometimes in tears) they would LOVE to live like that.

 

 

After reading this thread, I suspect that these tearful "confessions" might have been more a sign of your women friends being broken down by your insistent failure to hear or believe them than of them revealing their innermost desires to you.

 

Where are ALL these women you've had profoundly deep relationships with, who have tearfully "confessed" their secret desire to be kept? Why aren't you living happily in your chosen roles and lifestyle with any of them right now?

[Mme. Chaucer]

HEAR HEAR!!

 

My impression as a man, though, is that desiring to be provided for is the WRONG way to be according to seen societal peer pressure and statements, even though (as this thread has circled around many, many times) men PROVIDING is a really big and important deal to us, deep down. (not EVERYBODY, you know....)

 

Why not just speak for yourself and what YOU want in a relationship? I don't think you can speak for the majority of men, and certainly not for women.

[zengirl]

I do not believe things have to be "the same" in all ways to be equal. In fact, I know they don't. They have to have the same "result" to be equal -- I think men and women have the same results in their functions on Earth and deserve the same rights and social expectations attached to them, as such, are equal. Equal does not mean EXACTLY the same in every single way. In fact, we can equate two unlike things very easily in my society. 100 pennies is not the EXACT SAME thing as a $1 bill, but we can see they are equal.

[EasyHeart]

When we talk about male and female equality, we're talking about legal equality. All people are going to be unequal in real life. Some of us are simply better or worse at things than other people.

 

I think the notion of group rights (as opposed to individual rights) is one of the worst and most dangerous ideas we've ever come up with because it legitimizes and institutionalizes certain prejudices. It becomes particularly dangerous in interpersonal relationships when people look at partners (or potential partners) as members of a group rather than as individuals.

 

Yup, lots of women are spoiled. Yes, lots of men are jerks. All of that is irrelevant; all that matters is whether the one person you want to date is like that. And if they are, THEN DON'T DATE THEM.

[wwwjd]

After reading this thread, I suspect that these tearful "confessions" might have been more a sign of your women friends being broken down by your insistent failure to hear or believe them than of them revealing their innermost desires to you.

 

Where are ALL these women you've had profoundly deep relationships with, who have tearfully "confessed" their secret desire to be kept? Why aren't you living happily in your chosen roles and lifestyle with any of them right now?

 

If you, Mme. Chaucer, are a women, you already know how touching deep conversations can get. If you are a guy, then perhaps you do not know, and are ending up assuming something completely incorrect.... get to know women closer (if you are a guy) and someday you will understand.

 

I didn't say it was my chosen way of life. Without getting into personal detail, I am not a normal person and don't fit in with a cookie cutter life. It's why I am not married, nor dating. Doesn't make sense to waste someone's time and break their heart to find out I'm different.

I could tell you exactly where each of these girls are now in life, but I won't. It's not important.

Edited April 21, 2012 by wwwjd

[udolipixie]

I will AGREE with you people rarely talk about "inequality" when talking about other groups. [head scratch....]

 

THIS topic is only talking about inequality and/or difference tween sexes.

The defense is "we're different so we're not equal" right?

 

To me it's applicable in showing the "we're different so we're not equal" seems for many men to only apply to the genders not to people.

 

I'm stating that it's telling to me how this "we're different so we're not equal" defense many men have about the genders.

 

I'm not talking about proving people don't talk about inequality much between other groups.

 

I'm talking about how many men who use the defense 'we're different so we're not equal' don't seem to apply that to people only to the genders and how telling that is.

 

It does serve this discussion as not too many men would think of using the same defense 'we're different so we're not equal' to state how the genders will never be equal when it comes to people, races, or sexual orientation.

 

Are you saying MEN pull the inequality card most of the time, and women pull the EQUALITY card? Ok. Again... so? That's how it is.

I'm saying many men use a defense for why men/women can't be equal that they don't use or even consider using when talking about equality for people, races, etc.

 

I'm saying it's telling how many men only pull the inequality card when it comes to gender.

 

I'm saying "Guy army" because we are pigeon holing it as that since more guys populate it than women - IN COMBAT ON THE FIELD. In my head "Guys army" reasons out to "There are more guys than gals there" so guy army is just easier to type. In live conversation it probably would have made sense and worked

OBVIOSLY, I never want to belittle all the women that ARE in the army in any way. I love women, and am really not a pig. Just trying to say GUYS populate the ARMY more with less typing.

No you're pigeon holding it as such.

 

My repeated questions of why you're referring it to a guy army or men's army would have Reena clue in I wasn't doing the same pigeon holding.

 

It doesn't matter that there are more men than women in the army. That doesn't mean that the army is only for men thus women need to get their own if they think or believe they're equal to men. It being mainly men isn't a logical reason for me that believing men and women can be equals mean that women have to create a separate army. As there is an army women can and do join already.

 

So tell me what are you trying to say that believing women and men are equal means that women need to create their own army and good luck with that?

 

So tell me what are you trying to say when stating 'it's not gonna happen' to 'wouldn't a united force be more beneficial'as women creating their own army doesn't make sense when it has already happened as there are men and women in the army?

Edited April 21, 2012 by udolipixie

[wwwjd]

udolipixie, sometimes this happens on the net. we are miscommunicating badly. No blame, it just happens. So, I read your post 3 times, over and over repeating sentances over and over, reading the words, understanding them as my primary English language allows. And I am just not tracking with you.

I wonder if maybe some commas are missing here and there and I am jumbling your thoughts into alternate perspectives in my mind, because I just don't get it. It really is not you, it must be me. I accept that.

 

My knee jerk reply is: I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE YES YES YES I GET IT, BUT WHO CARES? IT DOESN'T PERTAIN TO THIS THREAD AT ALL, SIMPLY SAYING IT EXISTS!!! Yes, it exists, YES, I agree it exists, but who gives a frap about that point within the context of this thread??

 

So, a man uses difference as not equal, or maybe not... outside the male female thing, which we are talking about in here, who cares? Yes, I agree they maybe don't use diff as inequality.... WHO CARE???? WE are using that IN HERE!! Doesn't make any difference.

 

And PLEASE don't respond by saying the same thing again, because we need to agree I am too thick to track on how it makes any sense in the context of this thread's topic.

Maybe someone else here can better explain to me why this unrelated tangent keeps popping up and why I am not getting it?

 

And I can't explain what I am trying to say about the army and have you understand it than the way I already have tried to do.

 

We just aren't getting across to each other.

It happens. It's all good.

[udolipixie]

Yes, it exists, YES, I agree it exists, but who gives a frap about that point within the context of this thread??

 

The context is to many men 'we're different so we're not equal/never will be equal' is a logical/reasonable defense when it's about the genders.

 

The point is not too many men would think of using the same defense or think it logical/reasonable when it comes to other matters such as people, races, sexual orientation.

 

It's telling to me that only when it comes to genders that being different means you're not equal and will never be.

 

And I can't explain what I am trying to say about the army and have you understand it than the way I already have tried to do.

If women are already in the army regardless of men react badly to women being in warfare and you pigeon holding it as a guy-army why does thinking men and women are equal means women need to create their own army and good luck with that?

 

What happened thus far to me:

I stated that women are already in the army why would believing men/women are equal mean they need to create their own and that a separate army idea was a bit illogical to me as a united force would be better.

 

You stated that a united force is 'not gonna happen'.

 

I stated it's already happened and questioned if you're dismissing the women in the army. I questioned that women already have an army they are in and can join so why do they need a separate one if one thinks men/women are equal.

 

You stated men react badly to women being in warfare as why women can't join 'our guy-army'.

 

I stated women are already in the army and in combat despite men reacting badly to women dying in warfare. I questioned that men reacting badly to women in warfare didn't mean women had to create a separate army before so so why does it men they do if one believes women/men are equal.

 

You stated after three statements of are you dismissing that you're not dismissing it's a guy-army because it's mainly men.

 

I stated it doesn't matter that there are more men than women in the army it doesn't mean that the army is only for men. I questioned that mainly guys didn't mean women had to create a separate army before so why does it they do if one believes women/men are equal.

Edited April 22, 2012 by udolipixie

[wwwjd]

k, after the 700th reading of the lines you keep repeating again, the only thing I can get out of it, is that "diff means not equal" statement should not apply to sexes because it applies no where else? Maybe? Is that what you are trying to say? Even though it easily does apply to sexes and everything else. And I will reiterate for this final time. That doesn't even matter in this thread.

A dog is not equal to a cat. AND They are different.

A tree is not equal to a rock. AND They are different.

A tree is not equal to another tree. AND.... yep, they are different.

 

The equality of men and women only exists on paper and, hopefully RIGHTS, where we see the paychecks are not the same sometimes. This thread discusses men and women. Not trees, rocks, cats, dogs, race, religion, politics, matter, antimatter..... just men and women. And we will always be different.

 

But we will NEVER be equal, not better not worse, just different. And that is the last time I will say that. Not sure how to make it any clearer.

If YOU choose to see unequal meaning one is "LOWER" than the other, that is your choice to feel that way.

 

 

Sorry, but I have to get real specific to spell it out about the army thing... then I'm done with that too.

 

We talk about men not handling women blown apart. That doesn't happen behind a desk very often. So LET'S OBVIOUSLY ASSUME we are talking about combat and battle, front lines, ground forces. If our army troops that go in and actively fight the battles are 51% populated by women, then I was wrong. To my knowledge our fighting forces (hertofore known as "Army") is LESS THAN 50% women, then we must deduct that the majority are MEN. They dominate the ground forces. Not trees, not rocks, nor cats or dogs, but MEN. Men don't deal with any women - OUT IN THE COMBAT FIELD - getting blown apart. They don't. Just accept and deal with that yourself internally. Combat readiness included, there are not enough women to create a 51% majority of population in the "army"......

 

soooooooo.... do you get it now? It is a man's army? I'm not making the rules, just implying from population count.

 

IF WOMEN ARE EQUAL TO MEN then.... keep up now.... since we are not letting you into OUR MAN ARMY, you ought to be able to just go our and make a new army.

 

This is my attempt at snarky humor and maybe you are taking it like it is a legitimate suggestion. It's like saying, "GET YER OWN!"

 

bottom line is, until women dominate 51% of the battling ground forces, it IS a Guy Army. BECAUSE guys don't deal with women explosions, it's not likely to ever get to 51% being women: not gonna happen. And the day that happens, every other nation will steam roll right over us. Sorry if you don't like hearing that... take it up with the military bean counters.

 

So, feel free to make things right by going out and making your own girl's army. It will probably be just as successful and equal to the men's versions. Exactly like WNBA, the women's pro football league, women's baseball, and all the other countries WOMEN'S ARMIES out there.

What's that? Oh, there AREN'T ANY. Gee, I wonder why.

[sally4sara]

Sara, if you are unfamiliar with "conversations", religion and politics are the two most heated conversations ANYWHERE between any peoples. There are plenty of other places on the net for that. This place concerns sexes, relationships etc. I simply tend to TRY to stay out of religion and politics debates online AND in real life. It's not you, it's me.

 

Yes but anyone with a brain could tell I wasn't talking about politics. I was talking about what you were talking about; trends within groups. I chose the group "presidents" because you kept going on about how women this and that compared to men because of tendencies or trends. You propose that men are suppose to be providers because they have been so more often than women.

 

So I provided you a corollary situation to show you your logic in a different light:

More white men have been president than black men so by your logic white men are suppose to be president because they have been so more often than black men.

 

And rather than think "wow, that is one racist statement but it is of the same logic I'm trying to promote, so maybe I'm just being a sexist twat" you pretend I am talking about the inner workings of politics.

[wwwjd]

I understand what you are saying. And I am sure you are probably right. But I still won't bother with analogies with religion, race or politics.

 

Can you imagine me, I mean *ME* trying to talk religion, race or politics?? I get in enough problems just talking about men and women hahahahaha

I would probably accidently blanket offend everyone at once with in 3 snetances and my ISP would get banned from this site.

 

Trust me, I just shouldn't go there or even be within a mile... so the court order states.

[sally4sara]

I understand what you are saying. And I am sure you are probably right. But I still won't bother with analogies with religion, race or politics.

 

Can you imagine me, I mean *ME* trying to talk religion, race or politics?? I get in enough problems just talking about men and women hahahahaha

I would probably accidently blanket offend everyone at once with in 3 snetances and my ISP would get banned from this site.

 

Trust me, I just shouldn't go there or even be within a mile... so the court order states.

 

Since racism is wrong and rooted in fear and ignorance, so too is sexism. Staying stuck in it will serve you to no good end. It will not be any help to you in romantic relationships; quite the opposite. Why not just hang up this topic and try to adjust your thinking to a more open minded and accepting style? It can only enrich your mind and life.

[udolipixie]

k, after the 700th reading of the lines you keep repeating again, the only thing I can get out of it, is that "diff means not equal" statement should not apply to sexes because it applies no where else?

 

I'm questioning and saying it's telling why to many men 'we're different so we're not equal' is a logical and reasonable defense when it comes to genders but not for other matters.

 

Nowhere did I state it should or shouldn't be applied.

 

Nowehere did I state, imply, or suggest that I saw being unequal to mean one is 'lower' the other.

 

Perhaps you should keep up women are already in the army despite men reacting badly and it being mainly men.

 

You weren't specific as to: Why does believing women/men are equal mean that things that didn't prevent them from joining the existing army are now why they must create a separate army?

 

Though I may have the answer- you think if women think they're equal get your own. To me it's no different from a guy saying 'oh you think you're equal well guys are mainly in X so get out and get your own all gal X...not so equal now huh'.

 

Essentially you can't be with men if you think you're equal to them.

 

What's that? Oh, there AREN'T ANY. Gee, I wonder why.

Perhaps there aren't any women armies out there because the government sees it as more beneficial to have a united force and don't have a get your own if you think you're equal.

 

Perhaps there aren't any women armies here because women wonder why create a separate army when you can join the existing.

[wwwjd]

Since racism is wrong and rooted in fear and ignorance, so too is sexism. Staying stuck in it will serve you to no good end. It will not be any help to you in romantic relationships; quite the opposite. Why not just hang up this topic and try to adjust your thinking to a more open minded and accepting style? It can only enrich your mind and life.

 

No, that would be caving to "political correctness" (unrelated to politics) and I can't do that. Sexism will always exist because we are different and not equal. YOU have to accept that. I don't.

 

I think you will find most romance IS sexist. So is sex for that matter.

 

Oddly enough, I have no problems in my romantic relationships, and usually get many kudos for my chivalrous and SEXIST actions.

[sally4sara]

No, that would be caving to "political correctness" (unrelated to politics) and I can't do that. Sexism will always exist because we are different and not equal. YOU have to accept that. I don't.

 

I think you will find most romance IS sexist. So is sex for that matter.

 

Oddly enough, I have no problems in my romantic relationships, and usually get many kudos for my chivalrous and SEXIST actions.

 

HA!

Buddy I live outside of your little thoughts everyday, interacting successfully with my male partner and my son without what you think will always exist.

 

I think I'm done with your small thoughts. Stay small is you insist. Just like how you're only a paycheck if you believe it, so too are you just a small minded sexist if you believe it.

[wwwjd]

relax. this is JUST the internet, baby. it's not real.

[mesmerized]

lol this thread is hilarious.

 

OP, yes, men and women are different in general. However, the similarities are way way more than the differences. Emphasizing on the differences all the time will not do us any good, trust me. A lot of women are good at things that you would think traditionally a man would be good at or vice versa. There were female scientists whose discoveries were denied only due to the fact that they were women. There are studies that show the reason some women do less than men in school math is the fact that they believed they are supposed to do worse and the women who did not hold such beliefs and were not told that did equally good as men. You see how a "sexist" attitude can be harmful...same goes with men. Expecting men to be always logical and non-emotional is not fair to men and has caused them a lot of issues.

 

I think it's better to look at people as individuals who happen to be all different rather than expect them to fit into specific gender roles. Only in such setting we can get the best out of people.

[wwwjd]

and I really don't care about any of that.

 

I care that when I try to show my love, respect, and gratitude for my female by opening a door for her, I get a smile and a "thank you" back, not some snide women's rights remark about how she can open her own dam door.

 

I don't open the door for her because she is weaker than me,

I open the door for her because she means everything to me.

I open the door not to dominate her, but to LOVE her.

 

Is it illegal to love a woman yet? That's probably next.

[mesmerized]

and I really don't care about any of that.

 

I care that when I try to show my love, respect, and gratitude for my female by opening a door for her, I get a smile and a "thank you" back, not some snide women's rights remark about how she can open her own dam door.

 

I don't open the door for her because she is weaker than me,

I open the door for her because she means everything to me.

I open the door not to dominate her, but to LOVE her.

 

Is it illegal to love a woman yet? That's probably next.

 

There is nothing wrong with you opening the door for women. Women who take offense to that are retarded, to be blunt. I open the door for men too often, it's just being a nice human being and I appreciate when guys do it for me.

[udolipixie]

and I really don't care about any of that.

 

I care that when I try to show my love, respect, and gratitude for my female by opening a door for her, I get a smile and a "thank you" back, not some snide women's rights remark about how she can open her own dam door.

 

I don't open the door for her because she is weaker than me,

I open the door for her because she means everything to me.

I open the door not to dominate her, but to LOVE her.

 

Is it illegal to love a woman yet? That's probably next.

 

Interesting that you seem to put "and I really don't care about any of that' in response to look at people as individuals rather than gender roles.

 

Interesting that you get questioning why many men find 'we're different so we're not equal' is a logical and reasonable defense when it comes to genders but not for other matters to equate it being illegal to love a woman is probably next.

[namenottaken]

If it was an option, would you like to be a loved, protected, provided for, "kept" woman?

 

"Do women have this desire to be cared for, problem and stress free?"

These are two completely different questions. I originally answered the first.

 

In regards to the second, if I had a desire to be just “cared for, problem and stress free (financially)” I could have achieved that long ago. I’ve had marriage proposals from men who were more than capable (and willing) of providing that. Problem was I didn’t feel I loved them enough.

 

I started babysitting at age 10 and as soon as I was old enough for a work permit, I got one, and have worked ever since at a job that pays taxes. I (alone) raised my daughter, bought my house and vehicles, and pay all my bills. As others have stated, there is a certain amount of pride that comes with that.

 

I don’t desire to be cared for; I desire to be loved and to love in return (love isn’t part of the second question). And if that were to come with the ‘luxury’ of not having to work then that sounds like a really good option to me.

 

It’s not about being lazy, lacking ambition or feelings of entitlement; it’s about love and being happy. I don’t subscribe to the notion that “in the end, the one with the most toys wins”. Money is important to survival, but it doesn’t make me happy.

 

I’d rather be poor and in-love, than rich and taken care of.

 

Men and women will never be equal physically, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they should have equal rights. Those are two completely different things.

 

*It seems Godwin’s law no longer applies online. A new ‘law’ needs to be created to reference equal rights; the root of all evil (for some).

[zengirl]

The idea that you want to insist so badly that women and men are not equal suggests something really ugly to me inside your mind. I thought perhaps you were just misspeaking earlier, but what you are saying now is truly sexist. And, no, most of us don't have to live with that day-to-day in our personal lives, as we choose men who think differently. We do have to deal with a range of ignorance in society -- there is still sexism, racism, homophobia, and all sorts of bigotry out there -- but hopefully that is on the decline. It seems that way, at least. The easiest way for me to help it decline is to call it out for the ugly thing it is when I see it: Your statements are ugly.

 

Of course, as EH says, individual people will be individuals -- with different sets of skills and valuable traits to society -- but I don't really think that impacts the equality or inequality of women and men. The idea of equality is a social and legal concept, not a concept of sameness. If you can't grasp that, you've missed the whole point. It's also an idea within a relationship -- you either see your partner as an equal, or you see them as a superior or subordinate. I suppose people can do what they want, but I (personally) would never be around anyone -- male or female -- who saw their partner as a superior or subordinate or wanted either of those things for themselves. However, wanting an equal does not preclude a life where one parent or the other stays home or whatnot. Of course it doesn't!

[RedRobin]

Some sayings come to mind:

 

- if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

 

- There is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

The OP's proposition is just like that. There are always strings attached. He claims to be, um, like some grand male 'volunteer'... making the world safe for male chivalry blah blah.

 

I mean, OP... if an employer tried to get you to work for them and they made all of these fabulous promises, wouldn't you look at them a bit askance? Like, what is the catch buddy... Show me the fine print. Cause it doesn't add up.

 

It's a nice fantasy though. Real life steps in eventually, and we are all obliged to do the most with whatever we are born with. That requires flexibility and compromise most of the time. Sticking to rigid gender roles doesn't tend to be the best option for even 'traditionally' minded people anymore.

 

If you, the OP, have some idea that you want to be the 'head of the household' and make the final decisions, then pick women who agree with that relationship construct. I could be wrong, but my experience with men who have your kind of fantasies and who dangle the carrots you are trying to dangle... those are the strings they are trying to pull. It comes out eventually, so no sense hiding it. If you do, it will likely bite you in the *ss.

 

No offense, your approach just seems kind of lame and a bit sneaky in the big scheme of things.

 

If you really do come from Iowa, I totally get it though. It's a funny place. All that Northern European style independence and work ethic trapped in religious dogma. Like a Garrison Keillor skit "Where all the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are above average".