[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Can anybody tell me why we're taking idiots like mojo2 seriously? Pretty much everything he posts is designed to be either flame bait or some sort of social experiment. He also uses 'lol' in a non-ironic way, hat just doesn't happen to anybody over the age of 16.

Damn, me making this post means that my plan of following the tao is totally buggered for the day.

To the Mods:

Does this mean I get to insult Mastrap (and any of the others who were insulting) at a future time and thread of my choosing?

Or do I have to be the adult one who's treated like a child by the Mods and must suffer the indignities of the children?

That's part of the point, you see?

In our society and culture the husband and Father is made out to be the dunce, the inept, the idiot and this, even on Father's Day...THE ONE DAY OF THE YEAR DEVOTED TO FATHERS...is difficult for people to see or understand.

A telling fact, the phone company says there are more long-distance COLLECT calls today than any other day of the year.

[Zimphire]

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by chris v

So what about a situation in which the husband is clearly wrong in a way that endangers the life of the wife or her children? Does she continue to "submit?"

Now, let me just state for the record that I psoted in this classic thread.

Laura Doyle, who describes herself as a surrendered feminist — in fact, she was a late bloomer to "surrendering," having waited until her ninth wedding anniversary to change her name — writes that the concept of the surrendered wife is not about "returning to the fifties or rebelling against feminism." She quotes her sister, a ballroom-dance teacher, to explain it: "In marriage, as in ballroom dancing, one must lead and the other must follow. This is not to say that both roles are not equally important. It is rare that I find a woman who can resist 'back-leading.'"

Doyle's was a slow conversion, after the near breakup of her marriage and much counseling. She now has made The Surrendered Wife a movement; the book is an Amazon.com bestseller and "Surrendered Circles" are popping up across the country. She's even doing instructional-teaching tours.

...

What's refreshing about Doyle is that she knows the harm that can be done to a marriage by an overbearing wife. (And she is no fool — she does not counsel surrendering to a man who is abusive or an addict, for example.) She knows she used to be a "shrew" and will do what she can to make sure others don't do as she did. She doesn't see herself as superior to her husband or him to her. But she does see him as the man and she as the woman. She's not obsessed with feminizing her husband for the sake of equality. She feels no obligation to make her sisters proud, or to pay back any foremother for her suffrage and freedom to write books and speak. She does not see men as the enemy. That's something new for a mainstream book about wives.
...
"Some wives and husbands keep their income in separate accounts. With divorce an eventuality for half of all marriages, both parties feel they must be cautious in money matters, just in case"?

Next to this, I'll take Mrs. Doyle's "surrendered wife" any day. I suspect we'd all be a lot better off if we did.

123
 

[mojo2]

What exactly does trolling mean?

At first I thought it was like when you go fishing and you troll for a bite by steering the boat and leading a baited, hooked line through schools of fish as you go.

Then, I began thinking troll as in Shreck but I couldn't understand any way that would make sense.

Anyone know?

[Ghoser777]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Okay, for the heck of - mojo2, outside the context of a religious argument, why can't the rolls be reversed? I've met some women who are smarter than me, stronger than me, etc. Why shouldn't I defer to them in a logical sense?

Going down the religious road - there's a lot of context to those verses that should be noted, such as how poorly women were educated.

I don't mind having the advantage of her counsel if it's good but I don't want to have to be insincerely appreciative of stupidity ...

If she really IS smart (although I haven't met many women smart enough and respectful enough) I wouldn't mind letting her think she's right once in a while (even) when she isn't.

123

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Do you all see the way some of you react to a new concept? And that is without even considering the POSSIBLE merits of the concept. And if you will permit me, I am getting more than a fair amount of personal abuse here, and what role did the moderator(s) admins play in striking the tone where this is not only allowed but encouraged?

Now. Let's take a deep breath and imagine the mods/admins and I are in a marriage. They are the wife. I am the husband. The readers are the children (and these roles simply serve to illustrate the dynamic, so please let's not get too ridiculous here, lol).

If ghporter hadn't responded as he did would you have felt as comfortable about attacking me with such abandon? Would some of the comments that followed from some of you have been permitted by the mods/admin if I had introduced a more PC idea?

I doubt it.

But it isn't me (so much) you object to, I suspect. It's that I'm prompting you to consider change. It makes you uncomfortable. So, you try to shoot the messenger.

Back to the Wife/Husband/Children analogy...

The author of the book and the leader of this very popular movement suggests if the wife goes along with the husband, shows him faith, confidence and yes, obedience, the husband will change and everyone in the family benefits. It is the wife who is using her power to affect positive change.

If the mods hadn't given the subtle green light (whether purposely and knowingly or not I can't say) to begin a flaming frenzy on mojo2, maybe the process of idea sharing could have gone on without the sturm and drang it seems they are trying to avoid.

Unfortunately this is simply a huge misinterpretation of the biblical principle. The way you explain it it is literally forcing women to manipulate men because thats the ONLY way you can influence change.

[itistoday]

mojo2, are you saying that it's not possible to have a loving and functional relationship, in a husband + wife scenario with children, unless the wife "surrenders" to the husband?

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by mojo2

123

You're just assuming she's wrong. Lying to her to make her feel good. That certainly isn't respecting your wife so I certainly don't think she'll oblige and do the same.


Oh, I also just remembered that the Bible says that you should "Honor they wife", hm, interesting comcept? Don't think it includes being condescending.

[invisibleX]

Mods could we move this to the appropriate place? This doesn't belong here and its clear very little constructive discussion will be happening in the next.. oh, say,.. 6 pages. I'd love to have a chance to talk this over with Mojo, too bad its too hot a topic for this place.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Thanks. It's an interesting term and definition. So what would a person be if they simply shared their honest beliefs but those beliefs were inflammatory?

I thought more folks would have felt as I did and would have jumped to agree. But let's say I were to introduce this idea in a different online forum, now with the knowledge that it would provoke strong reaction, should I announce I am going to introduce a devil's advocate kind of argument that I firmly believe in??? What good purpose would that serve?

And exactly what kind of culture and society have we evolved when someone with an unpopular idea must carefully weigh the possible grief that would come from broaching that subject in a place for the exchange and discussion of ideas???

At first I thought there were only a few of you and I could ignore the pot shots here and there but after a while it was overwhelming. But even that wasn't the worst part. The worst part was that those I look up to as the guardians of your and my freedom (indeed Freedom's Gatekeepers) to honestly and forthrightly talk and debate topics (both popular and un) on these pages were going to silence me and any further discussion before the truth of the matter came out.

THAT was chilling.

The overall effect though is to make me think twice about saying anything else here that isn't just sort of inconsequential or that doesn't squarely fall into an accepted line of thought.

If I said I wanted the terrorists in Iraq to continue their campaign of senseless and despicable car bombings, I suspect I would have been afforded greater official 'protection' and the insulting posters themselves wouldn't have been as mean spirited.

Just some feedback for you.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

You're just assuming she's wrong. Lying to her to make her feel good. That certainly isn't respecting your wife so I certainly don't think she'll oblige and do the same.


Oh, I also just remembered that the Bible says that you should "Honor they wife", hm, interesting comcept? Don't think it includes being condescending.

When I was reading about Amy Acuff, the subject of a post in another thread, I saw an Esquire Magazine list of tips on things every man should know. One of them was that a man is never right and that the woman will always win every argument.

I laughed until I remembered how things had been in some of my early relationships and it was true. I always found myself going along with her (their) edicts just to, as ghporter pointed out, "keep momma happy." Whether she was right or not.

I began choosing (or stopped accepting) women into my life whom I couldn't intellectually and spiritually respect.

When I saw the Esquire tip I thought to myself, If I'm gonna let her be right just to 'keep momma happy' I damn sure don't want to keep a dumb ass momma happy. I want to make sure I have one with brains.

But, the bottom line is that the responsibility if things go wrong with the things the woman messed up ALWAYS fell into my lap. So, if I'm going to be held responsible for fixing or managing whatever it is ANYWAY, I think I'm the one to call the shots, with her counsel if it is good and she knows what she's talking about. If she doesn't then I will tell her that I'm going to handle this one.

And it will be ok and she won't get all bent out of shape about it because of her orientation...she understands the man is the leader of the family.

If there are times I let her win the argument even though I know I'm right, I will feel better knowing she often IS right and this one is just for the sake of relationship harmony.

[Ghoser777]

So I don't see what your argument is here. Are you saying that women should submit because they're never right, or they should submit when they're not right (which you think is most if not all the time)?

Why do you feel like you need to submit to her if she's wrong? I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. If anyone is wrong, you shouldn't just let it slide. You choose your battles, but you don't need to lie to someone to make them feel better.

I liked our threads about boobies better.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I'm crazy for stories about Amish men threatening their wives with small firearms. More, please.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

I liked our threads about boobies better.

I completely agree. Or at least the recent trend of erectile disfunction. Those are even preferable.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

So I don't see what your argument is here. Are you saying that women should submit because they're never right, or they should submit when they're not right (which you think is most if not all the time)?

Why do you feel like you need to submit to her if she's wrong? I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. If anyone is wrong, you shouldn't just let it slide. You choose your battles, but you don't need to lie to someone to make them feel better.

I liked our threads about boobies better.

I used to date strong women who wanted to have their way even though I was usually more knowledgeable or better equipped to make the decisions. Because they needed to be the big shot and I was pretty laid back I went along even though they often screwed things up. Whenever they screwed things up, I had to fix them and make everything right. Sort of like Lucy and Rickey.

I just got tired of strong willed zany minded women and from then on reserved the drivers seat in the relationship and changed my criteria for co-pilots.

The Esquire tip reminded me of the significant difference between what I believe now and what I had to go through to arrive at this point.

I guess my bottom line is that very smart, strong and capable women who like to honor their man as the leader of the relationship, household or family but who are able to drive the "bus" just as well or almost as well as the man are the best women to choose as mates.

And if THAT seems inflammatory then just pretend I said women with shapely legs as being the best choice for a mate.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

I completely agree. Or at least the recent trend of erectile disfunction. Those are even preferable.

This whole thing has taken it's toll on me, I must say.

[U n i o n 0015]

There is no doubt in my mind that this guy's views will lead to divorce (if it hasn't already). That is, if any woman is dumb enough to marry someone whose brain apparently missed the last 50 years of American society.

So do us a favor...step back into your time machine and head back to 1952 where you can smoke and drink with your poker buddies and laugh at the "ignorance" of your wives.

You might find it frightening here in the future, where we treat women respectfully and gasp--acknowledge when they are superior to us! If that doesn't do it, maybe the flying cars and silver clothing will.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I used to date strong women who wanted to have their way even though I was usually more knowledgeable or better equipped to make the decisions. Because they needed to be the big shot and I was pretty laid back I went along even though they often screwed things up. Whenever they screwed things up, I had to fix them and make everything right. Sort of like Lucy and Rickey.

[SNIP]

I guess my bottom line is that very smart, strong and capable women who like to honor their man as the leader of the relationship, household or family but who are able to drive the "bus" just as well or almost as well as the man are the best women to choose as mates.

So there are two types of women in your world: Dumb women who like to lead, and smart, strong and capable women who honor you as the leader? There are no actually strong, smart and capable women who are capable to doing things themselves? All the ones who take initiative are dumb ****-ups?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by itistoday

mojo2, are you saying that it's not possible to have a loving and functional relationship, in a husband + wife scenario with children, unless the wife "surrenders" to the husband?

Thanks for bearing with the delay. No, if things are working for you then don't fix what ain't broken.

I'm saying God set down some guidelines for men and women's roles. The foundation for how families and relationships should work are tried and proven. Some of the attitudes of men were unhealthy and these widespread attitudes led to a quiet century long insurgency among women which has freed women from the oppression but led women, men AND their families into assuming roles which may not well serve us.

Yes, it IS possible to have a loving and functional relationship, a husband, wife and kids where the woman is completely equal to the man in every way possible and even when the woman is the boss of the family.

But it's like asking if a single parent can successfully raise a child. Sure it's being done every day all across America and around the world. Is it ideal? No. Is it the formula God provided us as the optimal one? No.

Have I found the situation to be to my liking? No.

Could an examination of the roles we assume in our relationships be constructive? Maybe.

(I'm feeling VERY cautious now so please excuse the PC-ness)

Please discuss this with your significant other as well as your religious counsel to determine whether this might be right for you.

All I know is that a little reading on the subject wouldn't hurt if your relationship isn't everything you'd like it to be. The author of the book was a FEMINIST and didn't take her husband's name for NINE YEARS!

The principles in her book saved her marriage.

She shares them with you and the world. Many say it is the best thing to ever happen to their relationships.

[macamac]

Mojo: Turn your internet to the off position and step away from the keyboard, you are in violation of rule 2005 of the civilization code of ethics which I just made up, but I think it can be passed into law very quickly with an act of Congress.

Women are capable of doing everything a man can do, of course some of those things require they inject themselves with steroids, but hey, that's their problem.

The problem arises, when a woman or a man thinks he is superior to the other. What sort of nonsense is this? Women who have gained power in the workplace have also abused said power as a man would have years ago. Once one gains the right to express their equality, then all rules apply to them as well.

One thing that will never change and I do think fogs up this whole topic?

Men have genetically been inprinted with the "Hunt and Gather" gene, and women withe the "Make man horny to propogate" gene... It's a fact of life that has been proven time and again. We might be messing with that a tad, but I'm not worried, as I think that would take about a billion years to change or reverse.

The fact is, "Hunter Gatherer Man", now hunts for a job to provide for his family, and now he is competing with the "mother" of the family for a job to provide. So, this can cause problems, especially now when it seems both spouses have to work to provide. The family is becoming disjointed, and you are worried about who is superior and whom is supposed to be inferior?

Mutual respect first, then let's all decide on what role is being played. Women can, do and have been the runners of households which is a mighty task indeed. It is on par with any job a man can have and then some when you place a few kids in the mix. It's not degrading for a woman to stay at home and run it as if it were a job, because it's an amazingly difficult thing. Even if the man pitches in to do many tasks.

[iMOTOR]

Lets not forget that most Muslim societies have adopted this "I have the dick, so I make all the decisions" concept. Lets not also forget that the whole middle east is one big giant cluster fsck.

[Luca Rescigno]

mojo2, why do you chide people who hate your views for not accepting new ideas? The idea that women should be treated as inferior or subordinate isn't new at all! It's so old, it predates recorded history. In fact, it probably predates the history of the human race as well, stretching tens or even hundreds of millions of years in the past.

And how can you possibly cite the Bible as a source to back up your position? The Bible is a tired old text that has long since outlived its usefulness, at least in a literal sense. It is no longer a manual for how to live... it's a gateway to spirituality. If you truly think you should live your life exactly as the Bible dictates, be my guest. Maybe while you're at it you can raise goats in a pasture and attend public stonings.

Yes, men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. But they're much more similar than they are different. I know plenty of women who are physically more capable than me, not just in agility and flexibility but in raw strength as well (and I'm a large guy). There are tons of women who like football and beer way more than I do (I don't care for either). And yeah, I also know a lot of women who aren't as physically capable as I am, and I know a lot of bimbos (actually, of both sexes) as well.

You're making a lot of assumptions when I think you should be promoting a more open-ended philosophy of marriage. In general, the two people getting married should be equals, but in case they are not I could see the validity of a very slight dominant/submissive setup, just to keep the marriage intact. But such roles could go either way... if one member is clearly intellectually superior to the other, the relationship could be kept intact through dominant and submissive roles. As I said, though, it could go either way. A woman would be just as likely to be in the dominant role as in the submissive role. And that's not a good setup anyway... really, the two people should be intellectual equals.

EDIT: The one good thing about you, mojo2, is that you're getting everyone here to agree on something! I don't think I've ever agreed with the likes of Budster and Zimphire before (well, a few times with Z), but right now I'm 100% behind them.

[Railroader]

Hey mojo2, you got a girlfriend/wife/femaleslave?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by U n i o n 0015

There is no doubt in my mind that this guy's views will lead to divorce (if it hasn't already). That is, if any woman is dumb enough to marry someone whose brain apparently missed the last 50 years of American society.

So do us a favor...step back into your time machine and head back to 1952 where you can smoke and drink with your poker buddies and laugh at the "ignorance" of your wives.

You might find it frightening here in the future, where we treat women respectfully and gasp--acknowledge when they are superior to us! If that doesn't do it, maybe the flying cars and silver clothing will.

You are either dealing in stereotypes OR you are projecting your emotions that may have come about due to someone like you have described here.

I don't smoke or drink and long ago ceased my promiscuity. I do have poker buddies but we don't laugh at any of the spouses or girlfriends. I DO believe they chose us and we chose them because they like our perpectives and attitudes as we do theirs.

Why is it so difficult to see a different version of this than the one you describe?

Try watching Seventh Heaven for a better idea.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Hey mojo2, you got a girlfriend/wife/femaleslave?

Currently, none of the above. However, I am interested in getting married now that I know what doesn't work well for me.

Remember all it takes is one. I'm happy to wait for God to send her to me.

How about you, are you involved?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

Lets not forget that most Muslim societies have adopted this "I have the dick, so I make all the decisions" concept. Lets not also forget that the whole middle east is one big giant cluster fsck.

They aren't doing things the way we would, true. Are you saying it's SOLELY due to penii?

We aren't doing things they much care for. Is it SOLELY due to women's equality?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Currently, none of the above. However, I am interested in getting married now that I know what doesn't work well for me.

Remember all it takes is one. I'm happy to wait for God to send her to me.

How about you, are you involved?

Wait, before he answers that question (which really doesn't matter, he was just being a dick as usual), why don't you answer this one: Has the thought ever occurred to you, you who preach open-mindedness, that perhaps there is no God, that you are being completely duped, are living a lie, and even attempting to spread it? (At the cost of the female population no less).

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Currently, none of the above. However, I am interested in getting married now that I know what doesn't work well for me.

I am not surprised.

Originally Posted by mojo2

How about you, are you involved?

Married 8 years this coming Tuesday. One child, one on the way. We have been together for 12 years.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "Honor"?

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by U n i o n 0015

You might find it frightening here in the future, where we treat women respectfully and gasp--acknowledge when they are superior to us! If that doesn't do it, maybe the flying cars and silver clothing will.

Does anyone here think that women today would acknowledge when men are superior to them? God-forbid anyone even mention when men are superior. Now, I don't agree with mojo2, his view is pretty extreme, but then there is the other side of the spectrum:

Originally Posted by ghporter

In many ways, women generally, and American women specifically are superior to men in general. That they may not be as physically powerful as the average man is completely irrelevant. Women have a higher tolerance for pain, a tolerance which extends far longer than that of men. Women have communicative skills (beyond what is taught socially) that exceeds that of men; they can verbalize complex relationships, both spatial and otherwise, with a precision that makes men's reliance on drawing and other depictions pale in comparison. When not shakled by men, women succeed in everything they try.

Yes, women can do anything, it's always evil men holding them back...

As I said, in many ways wome are superior to men. And not having to "be the boss" gives men the opportunity to be more relaxed and learn more about themselves than grunting and scratching.

Think about the generalization made here. What if he had said that about a woman? What if he said women could "learn more about themselves than hair and beauty products" (or something along those lines)? I can just imagine the outcry.

The fact is, today, men are the only group of people that society for some reason finds it okay to stereotype. Just look at television ads today. Men are always portrayed as being stupid and not knowing what they're doing, or being only into sports, or whatever. Even the media has noticed this trend, and I just saw a thing on some morning show about it a few days ago (they had on Glenn Sacks who discussed his campaign against a Verizon ad).

I'm just so tired of all the political correctness out there (interesting article on subject). And so are some companies. It seems some companies are saying screw political correctness, and I think it works well. For example, here is one of the commercials discussed in the last article. I think it's hilarious and on that note, I'm done.

Yeah, kinda got off-topic a little bit. It's just I was Googling some stuff on this (trying to find that morning show story) and found some interesting articles, and wanted to include them all.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Are you saying it's SOLELY due to penii?

..........no, not SOLEY.

I think the main cause of this never-ending cycle of violence in the middle east comes from the leader Muslims follow. Mohammed encouraged heavy handedness and barbarism, fighting holly wars against anyone and everyone who opposes Islam.

Mohammed was in many ways a polar opposite of Jesus Christ.

This hatefulness is perpetuated by the mentality that it's sinful to question the ways of Mohammed, and as long as the enemy is being fought, it's okay for Muslims to live in fear. It's the Men in Muslim societies that perpetuate this mentality.

This culture of violence hurts Muslims just as much, if not more, than the rest of the world. And I firmly believe that if women's opinions were respected more in Muslim societies, they would be the voice of reason.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

mojo2, why do you chide people who hate your views for not accepting new ideas? The idea that women should be treated as inferior or subordinate isn't new at all! It's so old, it predates recorded history. In fact, it probably predates the history of the human race as well, stretching tens or even hundreds of millions of years in the past.

And how can you possibly cite the Bible as a source to back up your position? The Bible is a tired old text that has long since outlived its usefulness, at least in a literal sense. It is no longer a manual for how to live... it's a gateway to spirituality. If you truly think you should live your life exactly as the Bible dictates, be my guest. Maybe while you're at it you can raise goats in a pasture and attend public stonings.

Yes, men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. But they're much more similar than they are different. I know plenty of women who are physically more capable than me, not just in agility and flexibility but in raw strength as well (and I'm a large guy). There are tons of women who like football and beer way more than I do (I don't care for either). And yeah, I also know a lot of women who aren't as physically capable as I am, and I know a lot of bimbos (actually, of both sexes) as well.

You're making a lot of assumptions when I think you should be promoting a more open-ended philosophy of marriage. In general, the two people getting married should be equals, but in case they are not I could see the validity of a very slight dominant/submissive setup, just to keep the marriage intact. But such roles could go either way... if one member is clearly intellectually superior to the other, the relationship could be kept intact through dominant and submissive roles. As I said, though, it could go either way. A woman would be just as likely to be in the dominant role as in the submissive role. And that's not a good setup anyway... really, the two people should be intellectual equals.

EDIT: The one good thing about you, mojo2, is that you're getting everyone here to agree on something! I don't think I've ever agreed with the likes of Budster and Zimphire before (well, a few times with Z), but right now I'm 100% behind them.

Ok, though you are correct that the idea IS old, you wouldn't know it by the responses here. Some people have never CONSIDERED the idea. So, to them it IS new. As for those who are aware that female submissive roles may once have been the norm here in the US, how many of them do you think actually THOUGHT about it's advantages or disadvantages? Why did the concept die off? What was life like for men or women back then? What are the dynamics that exist today that we seldom think about that might be different (better OR worse) in a patriarchal culture?

As you've said the old way of doing things worked for a very long time. What does that tell you? It says to me things were working. Not perfectly, but what ever is?

Part of your response sounds like you take issue with the Bible. Watch that you don't try to invalidate the idea based on your lack of enthusiasm for a literal obedience to scripture.
As I said in a previous post this idea was proscribed by God but has relevance and validity beyond you religious beliefs.

We all have different benchmarks and criteria that must be met before we decide on a mate. Sometimes these criteria are conscious. For example, "I want a woman with shapely legs."

But some of those benchmarks may be very deeply seated in our brain somewhere and we don't even know we have that certain quality on our list. For example, "Why do I always wind up dating money grubbing gold diggers?"

(I plead guilty to the first example but chose the second out of thin air.)

Well, I wasn't CONSCIOUSLY choosing strong willed women who lacked intellectual horsepower, I just did it over and over again until I finally noticed that was what I was doing and then made a conscious choice to not pursue anyone with those qualities.

Prior to my change, I never ONCE considered a relationship that wasn't based on equality or the PRINCIPLE of equality.

Even in situations when it should have been apparent to me that she (they) were ill equipped to function as my equal because in most cases they were just sweet and pretty but really didn't or couldn't think critically or stop responding emotionally rather than intellectually, I forced equality on them.

They couldn't handle it and I just kept making them try to grow, to learn to function as my equal even though they weren't. Bless their hearts, they did well for themselves but I just made the wrong decisions.

I chose the wrong kind of women. I forced EQUALITY on them even though they didn't want it and weren't able to keep up with me.

I NEVER EXAMINED THE MALE SUPERIORITY ROLE. I was programmed that equality was best and anything else was bad, just like you all think.

Anyone who wasn't committed to 50/50 equality in a relationship was BAD and BACKWARDS.

Well, I've tried it during the past few years, having changed my conscious benchmarks for mate selection and I've been much happier. Although there IS some amount of getting used to. For example, I STILL ask where they'd like to eat or some such kind of decision and they sometimes accuse me of being INdecisive. lol But by and large it seems to take all the burden off the woman and increases my responsibility to keep her happy and manage my personal and business affairs.

I think if more women would just try, really try, to honor their man some of the problems in some relationships would find themselves gone, like magic.

But it may not be for everyone. Never said it should be. If someone was in a realtionship that needed saving I would suggest they read up on the subject.

(At your edit and the possibility of my uniting 'warring' factions, I'm tempted to say, "Well praise the Lord!" But that would be just wrong. How do they say it in the Arab world? The enemy of my "not really enemy" is my "really big smelly enemy...???")

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I am not surprised.

Married 8 years this coming Tuesday. One child, one on the way. We have been together for 12 years.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "Honor"?

See, I try being open and forthright and you take a cheap shot like that? I won't forget.

Railroader, I wish you and your family every happiness. If you ever have a rift in the fabric of that happiness you will be looking for answers. You may find yourself thinking of this dialog. If you do and you explore this topic further and it helps you, I will be happy for you.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by mojo2

See, I try being open and forthright and you take a cheap shot like that? I won't forget.

Railroader, I wish you and your family every happiness. If you ever have a rift in the fabric of that happiness you will be looking for answers. You may find yourself thinking of this dialog. If you do and you explore this topic further and it helps you, I will be happy for you.

It wasn't a cheap shot, I was being honest. With your views, I am not surprised you are single. Simple honesty. I wasn't being insulting.

Don't worry, I'm not taking any relationship advice from you, a man who doesn't even have a girlfriend. I have gotten most of my relationship advice from my grandparents (who were married 55 years) and my parents (who are married 39 years).

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Wait, before he answers that question (which really doesn't matter, he was just being a dick as usual), why don't you answer this one: Has the thought ever occurred to you, you who preach open-mindedness, that perhaps there is no God, that you are being completely duped, are living a lie, and even attempting to spread it? (At the cost of the female population no less).

Part of my personal commitment to God and Christianity is that, when the subject arises, I should give my testimony and that by doing so it reminds me that I am a representative of God and I should behave accordingly. Someone might or might not take the next step based on my words and behavior.

If I didn't believe in God I wouldn't say I did. I don't tell anyone to choose as I have.

Yes, I actually HAVE considered the possibility that God was someone's construct designed to control the masses. I have also considered other ideas about a diety as well. But I have seen God's work, felt His presence and detected his miracles that I USED to call coincidences, so I KNOW He exists.

However, that aside, the idea of female submissiveness as stated previously, doesn't depend on ones religious belief or lack of same to produce certain results.

What are those results?

Read the book and see.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Railroader

It wasn't a cheap shot, I was being honest. With your views, I am not surprised you are single. Simple honesty. I wasn't being insulting.

Don't worry, I'm not taking any relationship advice from you, a man who doesn't even have a girlfriend. I have gotten most of my relationship advice from my grandparents (who were married 55 years) and my parents (who are married 39 years).

I wish you well. If the time before you met your soulmate was wasted then I shall accept your condemnation of my pre-marital status.

If everyone had such an example of happily married parents and grandparents I feel the world would be a better place.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Does anyone here think that women today would acknowledge when men are superior to them? God-forbid anyone even mention when men are superior. Now, I don't agree with mojo2, his view is pretty extreme, but then there is the other side of the spectrum:

Yes, women can do anything, it's always evil men holding them back...

Think about the generalization made here. What if he had said that about a woman? What if he said women could "learn more about themselves than hair and beauty products" (or something along those lines)? I can just imagine the outcry.

The fact is, today, men are the only group of people that society for some reason finds it okay to stereotype. Just look at television ads today. Men are always portrayed as being stupid and not knowing what they're doing, or being only into sports, or whatever. Even the media has noticed this trend, and I just saw a thing on some morning show about it a few days ago (they had on Glenn Sacks who discussed his campaign against a Verizon ad).

I'm just so tired of all the political correctness out there (interesting article on subject). And so are some companies. It seems some companies are saying screw political correctness, and I think it works well. For example, here is one of the commercials discussed in the last article. I think it's hilarious and on that note, I'm done.

Yeah, kinda got off-topic a little bit. It's just I was Googling some stuff on this (trying to find that morning show story) and found some interesting articles, and wanted to include them all.

It's cool that you are able to look at this without it pushing your hot buttons.

I notice the commercials and the TV shows all the time and then I realize THAT is how I came to be such an unthinking proponent of total and complete equality no matter what.

I simply devoured and digested whatever the media fed me.

Some things the media says are absolutely correct. Other things may not be.

Only until you take back control of your own brain and survey your own deeply held beliefs and determine if those beliefs are REALLY serving you well...if they really represent how YOU feel, can you find answers that may elude you.

In this same context think about the messages of Fight Club. Some of the answers we've been given are lies. You won't know if THIS is a lie or not until you think about it.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by macamac

Mojo: Turn your internet to the off position and step away from the keyboard, you are in violation of rule 2005 of the civilization code of ethics which I just made up, but I think it can be passed into law very quickly with an act of Congress.

Women are capable of doing everything a man can do, of course some of those things require they inject themselves with steroids, but hey, that's their problem.

The problem arises, when a woman or a man thinks he is superior to the other. What sort of nonsense is this? Women who have gained power in the workplace have also abused said power as a man would have years ago. Once one gains the right to express their equality, then all rules apply to them as well.

One thing that will never change and I do think fogs up this whole topic?

Men have genetically been inprinted with the "Hunt and Gather" gene, and women withe the "Make man horny to propogate" gene... It's a fact of life that has been proven time and again. We might be messing with that a tad, but I'm not worried, as I think that would take about a billion years to change or reverse.

The fact is, "Hunter Gatherer Man", now hunts for a job to provide for his family, and now he is competing with the "mother" of the family for a job to provide. So, this can cause problems, especially now when it seems both spouses have to work to provide. The family is becoming disjointed, and you are worried about who is superior and whom is supposed to be inferior?

Mutual respect first, then let's all decide on what role is being played. Women can, do and have been the runners of households which is a mighty task indeed. It is on par with any job a man can have and then some when you place a few kids in the mix. It's not degrading for a woman to stay at home and run it as if it were a job, because it's an amazingly difficult thing. Even if the man pitches in to do many tasks.

I'm working up the thread and saving certain posts so I can respond when I have more time. But yours is refreshing in it's light hearted tone, yet you make excellent points which helps me clarify my statements and realize what I may need to say again or differently.

Rather than speaking in the general sense (In the hubub since this all began several hours ago I've forgoten exactly what I DID or DIDN'T say. lol) I think it is useful to speak for myself, personally.

I love capable women. I believe there are some women who can out perform men in certain things. I prefer these kinds of women to those who want the equality but can't measure up.

I find it difficult to find someone who is my equal.

When it comes to the leader of my family, the head of my household it will be me. I want a woman who has the smarts, the beauty, the strength, the character and the belief system to honor me and be by my side and give me her trust, which I must earn every day, and her honor, which I must return if I am to expect it to remain there for me.

If you were a marathon runner, not necessarily a world class marathoner, but you did maybe
3 -5 of them a year and were always in training you wouldn't choose a 5K runner for a running partner, would you? And if you somehow made allowances for the disparity in distances and abilities you wouldn't impose the sham of equality on the 5K person by making that person in charge of setting the training schedule for the both of you, would you?

Nor would you defend that person's perspective even when it was clearly counter productive or unresponsive to your needs or vision.

Well, THAT's what I did. Now I have changed and I wonder what is the state of things between the genders and I wonder if SOME American women have been forced into an unwanted kind of equality that turns her into a shrew and him into a "Desperate Husband." And where everyone is unhappy but because everyone unthinkingly is committed to a system which MAY not be the best for them they just let happiness slip through their fingers.

Female submissiveness may not be for all but all should know about it and make the choice rather than accept equality as the ONLY possible way.

[lil'babykitten]

I see you've got yourself a new nick, aberdeenwriter.

[Goldfinger]

I can't believe what I'm reading.

If you really believe what you are writing then you deserve this:


Incredible.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Female submissiveness may not be for all but all should know about it and make the choice rather than accept equality as the ONLY possible way.

I am so glad that there are women out there who insist on being equals. I don't think I could ever date a woman who wanted me to "take care" of her, or who was intentionally submissive.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Warung

I am so glad that there are women out there who insist on being equals. I don't think I could ever date a woman who wanted me to "take care" of her, or who was intentionally submissive.

But there are those who could, such as mojo.

I don't really get the big deal with all this... if a woman feels more comfortable being the 'protected' one in a relationship, surely she will (and should) find a guy who can 'protect' her and be the stronger and more dominant party in the relationship; and vice versa.

If a (wo)man feels (s)he needs to be with someone (s)he can be completely (or almost completley) equal to, surely (s)he will find someone with the same basic viewpoint, not someone who wants to either dominate or be dominated in the relationship.

Is this not fairly simple logic?

Besides, regarding the element of intelligence that has been touched upon here and there in this thread, it has always been my firm belief that a relationship between a very intelligent person and a very unintelligent person is both unlikely to happen in the first place, but also pretty much doomed from the beginning. I consider myself fairly intelligent, and I would never want to be in a relationship with someone who wasn't also at least fairly intelligent. I know people whose lack of logic thinking and/or intelligent simply baffles me. They are (well, some of them at least) in happy, functional relationships—the one thing that seems to carry through all these relationships is that their significant other has about the same level of intelligence as they do.


(Just so I'm perfectly clear, I don't believe in mojo's views: I would not want to be in a relationship that was not completely equal, and I would not want to either dominate or be dominated by my significant other in any way. Then again, I suppose, since there would be no women involved in any relationship of mine, mojo would actually agree with me on this )

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

I see you've got yourself a new nick, aberdeenwriter.

Who?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Oisín

But there are those who could, such as mojo.

I don't really get the big deal with all this... if a woman feels more comfortable being the 'protected' one in a relationship, surely she will (and should) find a guy who can 'protect' her and be the stronger and more dominant party in the relationship; and vice versa.

If a (wo)man feels (s)he needs to be with someone (s)he can be completely (or almost completley) equal to, surely (s)he will find someone with the same basic viewpoint, not someone who wants to either dominate or be dominated in the relationship.

Is this not fairly simple logic?

Besides, regarding the element of intelligence that has been touched upon here and there in this thread, it has always been my firm belief that a relationship between a very intelligent person and a very unintelligent person is both unlikely to happen in the first place, but also pretty much doomed from the beginning. I consider myself fairly intelligent, and I would never want to be in a relationship with someone who wasn't also at least fairly intelligent. I know people whose lack of logic thinking and/or intelligent simply baffles me. They are (well, some of them at least) in happy, functional relationships—the one thing that seems to carry through all these relationships is that their significant other has about the same level of intelligence as they do.


(Just so I'm perfectly clear, I don't believe in mojo's views: I would not want to be in a relationship that was not completely equal, and I would not want to either dominate or be dominated by my significant other in any way. Then again, I suppose, since there would be no women involved in any relationship of mine, mojo would actually agree with me on this )

I enjoy your perspective and have admired the intelligence of your posts for the past few days!
And yes, I do agree with you!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Warung

I am so glad that there are women out there who insist on being equals. I don't think I could ever date a woman who wanted me to "take care" of her, or who was intentionally submissive.

Take, for example something as small and simple as driving together to dinner.

When she allows you to open the door for her and she doesn't tell you which route to take to the restaurant, ask you which restaurant you've chosen or comment on your driving. You hold the restaurant door and then order for her, pay the bill and use her key to open her front door when you say goodnight.

If you are used to everything being equal then the above scenario may seem really strange. But if you ever want to try something fun, ask your gf or wife to try an evening like the one described above. It's an eye opener. You might hate it. You might love it. I had to grow into it. It felt strange after being accustomed to equality all my adult life. Once you have gotten used to it, anything else will seem strange to you.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I can't believe what I'm reading.

If you really believe what you are writing then you deserve this:


Incredible.

Now I better understand the real significance of the accomplishments of Christopher Columbus, for example. All I did was ask whether American women might be too liberated to readily adopt traditional female roles within a realtionship and express my preference for a woman who could.

Just think of what kind of graphic Auric Goldfinger would post if I said the world wasn't flat???!!!

And to quote Fran Tarkenton, now, "That's Incredible!"

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

..........no, not SOLEY.

I think the main cause of this never-ending cycle of violence in the middle east comes from the leader Muslims follow. Mohammed encouraged heavy handedness and barbarism, fighting holly wars against anyone and everyone who opposes Islam.

Mohammed was in many ways a polar opposite of Jesus Christ.

This hatefulness is perpetuated by the mentality that it's sinful to question the ways of Mohammed, and as long as the enemy is being fought, it's okay for Muslims to live in fear. It's the Men in Muslim societies that perpetuate this mentality.

This culture of violence hurts Muslims just as much, if not more, than the rest of the world. And I firmly believe that if women's opinions were respected more in Muslim societies, they would be the voice of reason.

Oh my goodness! Just think how much flaming you'd get by posting THAT concept on a MuslimNN or IslamNN or KoraNNN forum!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by mojo2

To the Mods:

Does this mean I get to insult Mastrap (and any of the others who were insulting) at a future time and thread of my choosing?

Insult you? You're the one who's insulting out collective intelligence. Count yourself lucky that you're spewing your nonsense in a geek forum with a low female member ratio. Otherwise you would have been run out of town by now. And good riddance to you.

As Zimphire said, somebody call the village and ask if they want their idiot back.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Insult you? You're the one who's insulting out collective intelligence. Count yourself lucky that you're spewing your nonsense in a geek forum with a low female member ratio. Otherwise you would have been run out of town by now. And good riddance to you.

As Zimphire said, somebody call the village and ask if they want their idiot back.

Zimphire stopped short of actually uttering the insult. You, on the other hand have insulted me twice now. How many more (what do they call them), ad hominem attacks do you have in you?

You don't want to attack me, Mousetrap. Just stop now and we'll go our separate ways in peace.

[Mastrap]

My, aren't you original. I remember the 'mousetrap' moniker, I also remember you have been banned before but I cannot for the life of me remember the name you used last time you shat all over this forum, posting 'controversial' topics in the hope to create discord.

I stand by what I said above. In my personal opinion, you're an idiot. On many levels.