RE: Should man rule over women for women’s own good?
August 28, 2014 at 6:33 pm
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2014 at 6:43 pm by Greatest I am.)
(August 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm)Zack Wrote: Who is Captain Coward and what is the Law of the Sea? United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) makes no mention of women and children first. That phrase first appeared in 19th century literature (William Douglas O'Connor) and has no basis in maritime law. The procedure is 30 minutes to load passengers then boats away. The only firearm you are likely to see on a ship's captain is for repelling borders against pirates, not gunning down men whose survival instinct is stronger than their adherence to Victorian chivalry.
A king's first responsibility is to the kingdom not the veneration of his queen.Unless of course that queen is Galadriel after Frodo offers her the One Ring. Queens have historically been nothing more than a means of extending one's lineage. Otherwise what use was the for agnatic primogeniture or semi-salic law?
I haven't met too many women that enjoy being placed on a pedestal, never to be touched but always adored, like some porcelain doll. And the woman that "demands what is hers" sounds high maintenance.
Going out this weekend. I don't think, "I'm no cuckold; BUT I will be just in my rule over you," is likely to get me any phone numbers.
Captain Coward you can Google. What you find might speak of the law of the sea.
Women and children first has been a tradition of maritime law for quite some time.
And perhaps you have not seen too many women on pedestals because men have been denying them equality.
Do you think the law should be women and children last?
Regards
DL
(August 28, 2014 at 1:52 pm)Losty Wrote:(August 28, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: Yes it does. Just like you not doing your duty to him would make you less of a woman.
Regards
DL
Me not doing my duty to whom?
What is my duty?
You have been told.
Enforce and demand that men do their duty to family and place women and children ahead of themselves. It is the moral thing to do.
Regards.
DL
(August 28, 2014 at 1:55 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:(August 28, 2014 at 12:23 pm)Losty Wrote:my duty to my children is because I created them and they are helpless without me.
A man has no inherent duty to serve his wife. If he wants to and he chooses to and she likes it then cool. But he doesn't have to and if he doesn't want to then that doesn't make him less of a man.
(August 28, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: Yes it does. Just like you not doing your duty to him would make you less of a woman.
Regards
DL
I just stumbled into this thread, but I don't think any claim could be made about an obligation to duties unless those duties are defined. I'm sure that's already been gone over though, could anybody give me a brief synopsis (or has it not in fact been covered yet)?
It is my position that it is to all of us, women and men, to demand equality of all people regardless of gender or sexual persuasion.
It is my further position that men should exceed equality and discriminate positively for women and children by bringing the tradition of women and children first to the life boats, IOW, placing them above us, even on land.
I see that as the duty of every man.
Man cannot be free while half or the worlds population is being discriminated against.
Regards
DL
