Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

[Greatest I am]

Probably the best state of affairs is when a man does a woman's bidding and she makes him think it was his own idea.

That would indicate that women are brighter than men.



You would be right in the majority of cases I think because of the jail equality stats.

If women were as dumb as men, then the 95% of men in jail compared to 5% for women would not be so close to reality in the stats.

Women obviously make smarter criminals.

Regards
DL

---

Will you take a seat in the lifeboat and let her die while you live?

Why would I base that decision on gender?

Are your children, wife and their lives not your first duty to family?

Or is it to yourself?

Regards
DL

---

You are a prime candidate for the Captain Coward club and do not recognize a man's duty to his family.

No wonder so few men do if women will not teach them as they should.

Regards
DL

Wtf lol. What kind of horrible disgusting mother would I be if I taught my son that his life is less valuable because he was born male. You can have your opinions but they are complete and utter bullshit. You may call me a coward all you like or captain coward or whatever, but I lived the majority of my life being less valuable and less worthy because I am a woman. I sure as hell am not going to do that to my son.
I teach all of my kids that they are beautiful and valuable and loved. A person has a duty to their family especially their children, regardless of gender.

You like to change language I see. Perhaps that is why you are not a fit mother.

I did not say men were less than women. I am saying that any man who does not recognize that women and children and their welfare should come before his own.

You stupidly see that as me saying that men are less than women when in a sense I am saying the opposite. Men, if they are to lead and deny women equality as they now often do, should recognize their duty to family. Even as you do not.

You are correct in that both men and women have a duty to their children yet you would deny man his by forcing him into the lifeboat where he will have to explain his cowardice to all.

If that is how you would show your love to your man then you know nothing of love or duty to family.

Imagine what Captain Cowards child must be thinking as he or she reads the news of his not doing his duty.

He would like your way but no man who knows his duty will.

Regards
DL

[Losty]

Your attitude is pathetic. 1 I'm not a feminist if some chump looks at me and says no m'lady after you, you can bet your ass that I will gladly have his seat on the life boat. Btw I don't have a man. I am strong enough to care for my own family and I never asked anyone to give their life for me.

Love isn't about duty. I learned that a long time ago. Maybe you should grow up and learn that too. As for captain coward, I have no idea who that is. I will tell you the same thing I told the asswipe at the park who told my son "you can't cry boys don't cry", keep your reverse sexism to yourself.

[Losty]

"You like to change language I see. Perhaps that is why you are not a fit mother."

Oh and btw go fuck yourself.

[orangebox21]

Just off the top of my head...

You can leave your job. Women can't leave their gender if their "subordinate role" (boy, you theists sure are good at sugarcoating!) leads them to be abused.

They wouldn't have to abandon their 'subordinate role' to leave an abusive situation, and they should leave it. You've also assumed that a subordinate role necessitates an abusive situation. It doesn't.

There are also strictures in place by law preventing your boss and police from abusing you,

And there are scriptures in place forbidding a husband to abuse his wife.

and those people aren't simply given assumed power over you by dint of physiology.

Who said anything about physiology? The explanation is about the creator and the created order.

---

Are the women and men you work with paid the same for equal work?

I don't work in HR so I can't answer that.

Most women are at about 70% of what men make.

That is wrong.

Does that make them inferior to men?

No, it makes them oppressed.

Yes it does to those who maintain that standard. Physically and mentally.

So you say.

What does this have to do with Biblical Christianity?

[TheGulegon]

I guess I think it's silly to put qualifiers on men in order for them to be real men. Homosexuals are still real men. What about a meek timid stay at home dad married to a strong woman who provides well for her family. Is he not a real man? Women are not inherently weak and in need of being provided for and men are not inherently strong nor should they have an automatic responsibility to protect and provide for anyone (except their own children but that's everyone not just men).
Sorry DL, I just really don't like when people say "real men" and then add all these silly requirements that are nt necesarry to be a man.
And women are not more important that men.

I agree when thinking of equal before the law.

Note how most judges do not agree if the men who think they were screwed by a divorce judge will attest to. I happen to agree with the judges I think.

When thinking of a man's duty to family, I go with the law of the sea where women and children are put to the lifeboats ahead of men.

Do you disagree with the tradition of the Law of the Sea?

--------------------------------------

As to women being weak.

The only weakness is their forced ability to carry a fetus to birth. That situation must be recognized and mostly has been over time. Only a really foolish man will not care for a pregnant wife and treat her as weak in that situation.

Regards
DL

Too bad their wasn't a "real man" around to drown Susan Smith before she nurtured her 2 babies right into that lake
Not calling for murder, mind you, but I find it difficult to believe anyone would get too upset over a man having taken that one's seat on the lifeboat! Prolly wouldn't get upset at a man for throwing her directly out to sea, instead of back on deck, either

[Losty]

No to take this and run the thread off topic but Susan Smith's story is so so sad to me. Not that it discounts what she did which obviously was horrible but she is a perfect example of why mental health needs to be taken more seriously.

[Tonus]

Why would I base that decision on gender?

Are your children, wife and their lives not your first duty to family?

Or is it to yourself?

I understood the topic as challenging those roles and the automatic assumption that everyone has a specific place based on gender. So I took up the challenge. In the situation you describe, I would base my decision on the love I feel for my wife and my children, and my desire that they carry on without me versus the shame I would feel if I allowed them to perish just to save me.

But that is an emotional decision, as would be expected in a situation where there may not be time to make a practical examination, and in a culture that expects us to fall into those roles. If we were to go with the idea of maintaining the strong and culling the weak, then arguments can be made for any number of options in that scenario: the men could be prioritized (under the assumption that they are the strongest), or the men and children (the strongest and the youngest), or the men and women (the strongest, and most ready to replace the losses). I think that if we toss aside the idea that man=strength and woman=weakness, then gender might become a secondary trait when deciding, or even discarded altogether.

[Greatest I am]

What does this have to do with Biblical Christianity?

He shall rule over you, ---- has been used to bludgeon women into submission to men for 3,000 years.

The West's great majority has been Christianity and they maintain women at the immoral unequal position that they occupy.

In the East, Islam has done the same.

Regards
DL

---

I agree when thinking of equal before the law.

Note how most judges do not agree if the men who think they were screwed by a divorce judge will attest to. I happen to agree with the judges I think.

When thinking of a man's duty to family, I go with the law of the sea where women and children are put to the lifeboats ahead of men.

Do you disagree with the tradition of the Law of the Sea?

--------------------------------------

As to women being weak.

The only weakness is their forced ability to carry a fetus to birth. That situation must be recognized and mostly has been over time. Only a really foolish man will not care for a pregnant wife and treat her as weak in that situation.

Regards
DL

Too bad their wasn't a "real man" around to drown Susan Smith before she nurtured her 2 babies right into that lake
Not calling for murder, mind you, but I find it difficult to believe anyone would get too upset over a man having taken that one's seat on the lifeboat! Prolly wouldn't get upset at a man for throwing her directly out to sea, instead of back on deck, either

Think global, not local.

Regards
DL

---

Are your children, wife and their lives not your first duty to family?

Or is it to yourself?

I understood the topic as challenging those roles and the automatic assumption that everyone has a specific place based on gender. So I took up the challenge. In the situation you describe, I would base my decision on the love I feel for my wife and my children, and my desire that they carry on without me versus the shame I would feel if I allowed them to perish just to save me.

But that is an emotional decision, as would be expected in a situation where there may not be time to make a practical examination, and in a culture that expects us to fall into those roles. If we were to go with the idea of maintaining the strong and culling the weak, then arguments can be made for any number of options in that scenario: the men could be prioritized (under the assumption that they are the strongest), or the men and children (the strongest and the youngest), or the men and women (the strongest, and most ready to replace the losses). I think that if we toss aside the idea that man=strength and woman=weakness, then gender might become a secondary trait when deciding, or even discarded altogether.

Sure. We could strip all characteristics out of the argument till it suited us. That is hardly a good way to form an argument because then it would not apply.

"But that is an emotional decision, as would be expected in a situation where there may not be time to make a practical examination,"

Which is why they made it a law while looking at it from a non-emergency position. There is emotion involved for sure as we are human but that law as well as most laws are led by logic and reason. Not emotion.

The Law of the Sea has both emotion and logic at it's roots but it is the logic that dominates. The duty of men is more abstract.

Regards
DL

[LostLocke]

Who was more involved in your rearing and nurturing?

Regards
DL

My mother

[Greatest I am]

Who was more involved in your rearing and nurturing?

Regards
DL

My mother

And in your duty to family, did she teach to put yourself ahead of your family or did she teach you to put them ahead of yourself.

Regards
DL