RE: Should man rule over women for women’s own good?
August 23, 2014 at 3:16 pm
(This post was last modified: August 23, 2014 at 3:20 pm by Greatest I am.)
(August 23, 2014 at 1:52 pm)Losty Wrote:(August 23, 2014 at 1:22 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: No. But he will recognize that the family is a man's first responsibility and that children are our collective future and women are more important to them than men.
Regards
DL
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
