Gabby Reece on Being Submissive

Off Topic
221

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Debra - do you get the final say in your relationship?
[/quote]

Depends what it is about, but not really. Like others have said, it’s a compromise and a win some lose some sort of thing. Neither of us wants to make a decision without input from the other. It’s not about permission or ruling but validation of your own decisions or looking for an alternate view.

We also talk each other out of things all the time, using logic and reasoning. We debate things around a lot and it does a good job at being critical enough to make the right decision.

I make quite a bit more money and I pay the mortgage and car costs but anything he needs or wants I hand it over without question. He would never make a large purchase without discussing it with me first but mostly because he wants my opinion. If he didn’t I don’t think I’d mind unless it was something I wanted to help choose, like a new appliance or something. I have better sense of decor :wink:

I can’t imagine ever getting in the way of what he wants and I think that goes both ways. Financially we are comfortable and not having kids simplifies things a lot so the worst we can really disagree on is who had to order the pizza and who has to go to the door to pick it up :stuck_out_tongue:

We’re both really laid back and willing to give in to each other pretty easily so there really isn’t a power struggle. I think there are a few things I’ve been stubborn about but I can’t actually recall them right now. I’m sure he has too but apparently nothing too significant. Ultimately we have the same goals and aren’t finding ourselves in a tug a war.

There are many things that I am much too apathetic about to care to make a decision and so it’s easy to say I dunno, you pick. And the same for him when it’s stuff I have stronger opinions on.

As far as more extreme or challenging conditions, we’ve done a lot of outdoor adventuring and he has the most knowledge but I am more risk averse. We have stopped and turned around and ended trips because I felt it was too risky and he needed to be convinced, yet he’s planning most of the route. We both have search and rescue backgrounds and we work well as a team. You really need to have great cooperation to enjoy yourself under camp conditions especially when things go wrong. We’ve been stranded camped on a high ridge in deep fog for a few days or found ourselves staring at a bear or stuck on the wrong side of a river when an unexpected run-off had occurred or had to spend extra days bushwhacking trails that were supposed to be maintained but we were mistaken. We’ve helped each other along in the woods through injuries and run out of water and been low on food or busted a water filter and a stove on the same trip.

You guys can talk out your asses about what is and isn’t possible but I’ve lived it for close to 20 years and there is no ‘boss’ although either of us are capable of taking charge when needed. We head out into the woods for a couple weeks every year and come back still as partners and it’s all good.

I work in a leadership role in a lot of projects of varying sizes and I know that the amount of ‘dominance’ or leadership that is required varies greatly by the quality of your team, the number of members and the type of work being done. Ideally you assert the least amount of authority necessary to get things done, often none at all, which is possible when people are working towards the same goal. It is not at all unheard of for a team of 3-5 people to work together harmoniously without there being a clear dominant force as long as you have mature seasoned pros with good relationships on the job. Get a team of the same number of people low paid and under-qualified and then you need to really lead them. So you let the teams that are mature go without supervision and require additional status and take on more decisions of the weaker teams and hopefully when you pull all the teams together things are falling into place. The point is rigid structure is only necessary under certain conditions and it’s not nearly as effective as being cooperative if you have the right people who have the right motivation. As groups get large leadership becomes mandatory but to suggest a group of two can’t be partners is just silly.

222

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Thing is, we are well suited to each other. We want the same things, we have the same goals (and always have) - we’re just on the same page 99% of the time, so that sort of power jockeying just isn’t required in our relationship. [/quote]

For the people describing this as “power jockeying” or “power and conflict”, I’m afraid you’re still misunderstanding what we’re trying to convey, which could be as much our fault, but there is a definite misunderstanding going on.

I’m not one to label it much, either, to be honest. I never refer to my wife as “submitting” to me or anything like that, but as has been mentioned, it seems to be the best terms we have to describe a relationship dynamic succinctly. [/quote]

I really don’t think it’s misunderstanding - just the personal viewpoint each of us has on it, and for me personally, any kind of label is unimportant.

Like the house thing mentioned earlier - it seems that decision was made by both parties - not really that his wife submitted to his opinion, but in discussing it together, they both came to the conclusion that it would be the right move to make for both of them, for various reasons.
[/quote]

This is my feeling on it also. Although I have moved a lot in my lifetime I have a hard time relating to the real estate question. It has come up before but we were always able to reach a consensus. When we moved to where we live now we weighed all the factors and WE made a decision.

I actually don’t think we are as far apart on this as it seems, It is just that in my family no one has the final say or really veto power. At least it has never come to that.

223

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
And kpsnap please understand that I am not trying to corner you, belittle you, or any other form of attack. [/quote]
I don’t take your questions this way at all. You strike me as a very respectful guy. I do avoid responding to those men who make blatant misogynistic statements or resort to personal assaults that are usually unrelated to the topic at hand.

I suppose my answer would be the same as SkyNett gave above. Any major decision would be handled on a case-by-case basis with a lot of discussion and negotiation. If my husband wanted to move for a job opportunity, I would most likely defer since he is the primary breadwinner. It’s not as though I’m unreasonable. Or maybe I am?

I’ve always been fairly independent. For example, I kept my maiden name because it never made sense to me to change it. That’s just how I am. Luckily I found a man who is attracted to my type. And we’ve made the relationship work for us.[/quote]

This is kind of where we stand except there is no single breadwinner as our salary’s are roughly on par, with her making a bit more. At work we are both in leadership positions, yet at home struggles for leadership don’t appear.

My wife also kept her hyphenated maiden name up until the point we had children. At that point she thought it better to take me name to avoid any issues or confusion for the kids. Plus I have a better last name.

224

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Debra - do you get the final say in your relationship?
[/quote]

Depends what it is about, but not really. Like others have said, it’s a compromise and a win some lose some sort of thing. Neither of us wants to make a decision without input from the other. It’s not about permission or ruling but validation of your own decisions or looking for an alternate view.

We also talk each other out of things all the time, using logic and reasoning. We debate things around a lot and it does a good job at being critical enough to make the right decision.

I make quite a bit more money and I pay the mortgage and car costs but anything he needs or wants I hand it over without question. He would never make a large purchase without discussing it with me first but mostly because he wants my opinion. If he didn’t I don’t think I’d mind unless it was something I wanted to help choose, like a new appliance or something. I have better sense of decor :wink:

I can’t imagine ever getting in the way of what he wants and I think that goes both ways. Financially we are comfortable and not having kids simplifies things a lot so the worst we can really disagree on is who had to order the pizza and who has to go to the door to pick it up :stuck_out_tongue:

We’re both really laid back and willing to give in to each other pretty easily so there really isn’t a power struggle. I think there are a few things I’ve been stubborn about but I can’t actually recall them right now. I’m sure he has too but apparently nothing too significant. Ultimately we have the same goals and aren’t finding ourselves in a tug a war.

There are many things that I am much too apathetic about to care to make a decision and so it’s easy to say I dunno, you pick. And the same for him when it’s stuff I have stronger opinions on.

As far as more extreme or challenging conditions, we’ve done a lot of outdoor adventuring and he has the most knowledge but I am more risk averse. We have stopped and turned around and ended trips because I felt it was too risky and he needed to be convinced, yet he’s planning most of the route. We both have search and rescue backgrounds and we work well as a team. You really need to have great cooperation to enjoy yourself under camp conditions especially when things go wrong. We’ve been stranded camped on a high ridge in deep fog for a few days or found ourselves staring at a bear or stuck on the wrong side of a river when an unexpected run-off had occurred or had to spend extra days bushwhacking trails that were supposed to be maintained but we were mistaken. We’ve helped each other along in the woods through injuries and run out of water and been low on food or busted a water filter and a stove on the same trip.

You guys can talk out your asses about what is and isn’t possible but I’ve lived it for close to 20 years and there is no ‘boss’ although either of us are capable of taking charge when needed. We head out into the woods for a couple weeks every year and come back still as partners and it’s all good.

I work in a leadership role in a lot of projects of varying sizes and I know that the amount of ‘dominance’ or leadership that is required varies greatly by the quality of your team, the number of members and the type of work being done. Ideally you assert the least amount of authority necessary to get things done, often none at all, which is possible when people are working towards the same goal. It is not at all unheard of for a team of 3-5 people to work together harmoniously without there being a clear dominant force as long as you have mature seasoned pros with good relationships on the job. Get a team of the same number of people low paid and under-qualified and then you need to really lead them. So you let the teams that are mature go without supervision and require additional status and take on more decisions of the weaker teams and hopefully when you pull all the teams together things are falling into place. The point is rigid structure is only necessary under certain conditions and it’s not nearly as effective as being cooperative if you have the right people who have the right motivation. As groups get large leadership becomes mandatory but to suggest a group of two can’t be partners is just silly. [/quote]

Great post.

225

See? This is all so interesting to me. I’m still trying to sift through my own 20 year marriage, which would be counted a successful one had I made a different decision three years ago. We skyped last night, we’re still friends despite the damage to finances and family the divorce caused. It really could have gone either way. It wasn’t a particularly happy marriage, however.

One of the problems we had, which I saw but probably didn’t realize the extent of at the time because I lacked comparison, was a perpetual power struggle. He’s always assumed that everyone is as desperate as he to be thought top dog, but I don’t think most people are particularly focused on that. I think Deb describes most adults at our levels of success, focused on the end game and working cooperatively and with respect. The ex is what I think of as an anxious bully (fear aggressive) and he has interpersonal problems in most arenas. His perception of me was of someone who wants control. I don’t. I will, however, lead in a vacuum, and in matters of home and family, where I have strong background and even stronger opinion, I want the lead if I announce that I know best. But things that shouldn’t have been a fight, were. Sex was muddied by the dynamic, too.

He was stunned when, during the breakup, I took control for real and began voicing my thoughts and decisions without regard for his need to feel validated. There’s a line in a Disney movie, Lilo and Stitch, that came to mind occasionally: “Thus far you have been adrift in the sheltered harbor of my patience…” I don’t think the ex had any inkling of the degree to which I smoothed and deferred and made it easier to be him. He made spectacularly poor choices in a lot of regards (a very depressed guy) and would fight to the death to defend his right to make them. I don’t think I submitted to him as much as accepted to keep the peace, because we had no means to negotiate differences.

However, that’s the negative piece…in most regards we managed just fine, since we had similar long term goals and neither of us wanted to make the other sad. He’s a kind, generous guy when not feeling threatened, and I’m pretty sweet and easy-going, so mostly it was a harmonious thing and from the outside we looked great.

In my current relationship things are much less confusing, though I acknowledge that it may be the short duration. He is very easy with command and decision-making, but is also very comfortable with shared decision-making. In the case of a disaster he would take the lead as he is knowledgeable about infrastructure and geography, and also has weapons and the will to use them, and I acknowledge that completely. He defers if anything medical or mental health comes up because I’m our man there. I decide what constitutes “clean” and “healthy” and he decides what constitutes “adequately provisioned” and “time to leave in order to arrive on time.”

We consult on most everything and both offer unsolicited advice freely without anyone getting ruffled (the ex took this as me trying to tell him what to do). I don’t know who/how final decisions are made, we don’t have enough time in, but I think they won’t be a problem. Everything to this point has been about both of us being comfortable, with each of us invested in doing the right thing by the other.

There is a definite element of ME MAN YOU WOMAN, but for us that seems to have to do with each of our relational styles and having a really lovely matching up of them more than any final say issues. If he felt strongly about something I would undoubtedly defer, just because it would seem like the right thing to do. But I think he would, too. Isn’t that what loving someone means?

226

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

In some respects, this is an example of submissiveness. If we define dominance as asserting one’s will over another (including, but not limited to making the decisions), then submission is subverting your will, or wants and needs, to those of others willingly. In this case, while your career would probably be personally rewarding, if I am reading your previous post correctly, then you submitted to what you perceived as the needs of your family.

Submissiveness is a mark of humility. In submitting to some authority (whether real or perceived), we are recognizing something greater than ourselves. In the successful relationships I’ve been around, including my own marriage, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This means that despite our own individual personalities, we recognize that the relationship is bigger, and ultimately more important, than ourselves (which you most definitely recognize as a mother). You may not be submissive to the person of your husband, but you are submissive to the needs of the family.
[/quote]

Good post. [/quote]

Excellent. Thank you.

Cueball - You asked if people like the concept of “defer” to each other. I asked that question in the OP, and then reinforced that in other comments when asked what I think about it. This is a hell of a long thread, so I won’t flame you for skimming.

227

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Well, if I said it the way I wanted to, well, I would say that women are herd animals.

More conformist than males.

Yes, there are studies.

Somehow, every experience has to be vetted by your friends, as if you dont trust yourselves.

And you do not trust yourself to design and uphold a public image, i.e, to be what you want to be.

No, it has to be approved off, I dont get that.
[/quote]

But doesn’t that just make them more socially-conscious/aware than males of the species?

And besides, what percent of the male population isnt also ‘herd animal’ type anyway?
[/quote]

Humans are social animals. Family groups, tribes.

<<<<<<< Not the resident gender studies major.

Speculation…

Perhaps since women tend to be more verbal, they provide more of the social glue in terms of maintaining social networks, and men tend to be more solitary.

Perhaps male friendships are more about “doing stuff” or competing. Playing golf, talking football, playing video games, going mountain biking, doing stuff… Where women’s friendships are more about talking. Big generalizations here.

People differ widely on the introversion - extroversion continuum.

228

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Perhaps male friendships are more about “doing stuff” or competing. Playing golf, talking football, playing video games, going mountain biking, doing stuff… Where women’s friendships are more about talking. Big generalizations here.[/quote]

229

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

I suppose if you define mothering as “submissive,” then yes, because mothering certainly requires putting the needs of the children ahead of your own much of the time. But doesn’t the father as breadwinner do the same? Is there anyone who never puts someone else’s needs/wants above their own at some time in their life? Using this definition, we’re all submissive at times. Just like we’re all dominant at times. Which has been my point all along.

[/quote]

We are operating under a false dichotomy between dominant/submissive in this particular sense. We want to define ‘submissive’ in terms of ‘dominant’ but that isn’t the case, at least not in terms of healthy relationship. As I’ve posited above, submissive in this case is the willingness to submit [u]your[/u] will to something greater, it is true humility, to acknowledge that something is more important than you (perhaps “defer” is more accurate in this instance). It is imperative that both husband and wife be submissive in this regard. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the wife submits to the husband because he should be sacrificing his entire being for the welfare of his wife and children. If the husband is working his hands to the bone to support his family, oversee the children’s education, and keep the house in decent repair, then the wife should be submissive to his attempts to carry out his task, and assist him as only she can.

Clearly, both are sacrificing much, and being submissive for the good of the family. In this regard, struggle for control and dominance have no place. There is no place for keeping track of who makes the decisions and who doesn’t. It is a true partnership, where there is no keeping score.

When any party makes a decision based on their own personal wants/needs regardless of the needs of the family, that party isn’t living up to its part of the deal. With little decisions, this isn’t such a big deal and lets be honest, most of us make SOME decisions based on personal needs as opposed to what the family needs. However, when it comes to larger decisions, in order for the family to survive, there is an inherent need to makes decisions based on the good of the family. It doesn’t matter who’s idea is agreed upon, so far as the decision will help the family.

230

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

In terms of how women will act when there is a small number of women in a male-dominated workplace (or website), that’s another interesting topic. Socially, some women will gravitate toward the few other women, extend friendship, encourage, be willing to serve as mentors for other women. Most of the women I’ve worked with fell into this category. Other women will go “Queen Bee” on it. They may be subtle, but they will work to sabotage, criticize, or gaslight the other women to maintain their place of status in the hive. Lots of adoring male worker bees, one QUEEN. She’s the alpha, and she protects her place by undermining others. She may be dominant in an all female hive too, but it’s harder on her to do it without building alliances with a few other powerful or useful females. I think what happened to Nikki a couple of years ago, which ultimately led to her leaving this site, had a lot to do with power dynamics.

[/quote]

Holy crap, that is so prescient to my situation at work…or it was until the Queen Bee was terminated for undermining the others…oh and sleeping with the manager…that didn’t help.

231

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

In terms of how women will act when there is a small number of women in a male-dominated workplace (or website), that’s another interesting topic. Socially, some women will gravitate toward the few other women, extend friendship, encourage, be willing to serve as mentors for other women. Most of the women I’ve worked with fell into this category. Other women will go “Queen Bee” on it. They may be subtle, but they will work to sabotage, criticize, or gaslight the other women to maintain their place of status in the hive. Lots of adoring male worker bees, one QUEEN. She’s the alpha, and she protects her place by undermining others. She may be dominant in an all female hive too, but it’s harder on her to do it without building alliances with a few other powerful or useful females. I think what happened to Nikki a couple of years ago, which ultimately led to her leaving this site, had a lot to do with power dynamics.

[/quote]

Holy crap, that is so prescient to my situation at work…or it was until the Queen Bee was terminated for undermining the others…oh and sleeping with the manager…that didn’t help.
[/quote]

Glad to hear they figured it out. I’ve had some fantastic female bosses. My first boss helped me so much. She was so bright, and such a great mentor. My husband’s current boss is also a really supportive woman, who lets competent people do their thing, but will go out of her way to find strengths in people or train them.

I’ve only had to directly answer to one of these QUEEN types, in my school psychologist days. I caught on pretty quickly when several different teachers told me about how she made them cry or set them up to embarrassed them in front of others. She liked to make criterion, and then change them, so people were constantly confused about what they needed to do to please her. Lots of gaslighting.

She could act around very different with men. In this case, there was also flirting and an affair. She was a classic “people are tools” type. She did not build “friendships” unless it was with someone in a position of power over her. She could be very subtle in undermining, and selectively ignoring, but when nobody else was around to observe, she’d drop the pretense and be downright nasty to other women. I thought maybe I was nuts, until my boss told me that her “leadership style” was a longstanding problem everyone was aware of, but due to the fact that she was a tenured principal, they were unable to do much about it. Another principal told me that she was a legend in “what not to do”, and proceeded to tell lots of crazy stories. The previous psychologist at that school told me they called her “The Nazi.” They even gave her a male Vice Principal who was gay as a strategy, because so many women had refused to work under her. Yep. It was ugly.

I’ve seen other women do it to each other. I’m not sure they are consciously aware that they do it, or why. Men can do this sort of thing too, but I the dynamics are different.

232

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
See? This is all so interesting to me. I’m still trying to sift through my own 20 year marriage, which would be counted a successful one had I made a different decision three years ago. We skyped last night, we’re still friends despite the damage to finances and family the divorce caused. It really could have gone either way. It wasn’t a particularly happy marriage, however.

One of the problems we had, which I saw but probably didn’t realize the extent of at the time because I lacked comparison, was a perpetual power struggle. He’s always assumed that everyone is as desperate as he to be thought top dog, but I don’t think most people are particularly focused on that. I think Deb describes most adults at our levels of success, focused on the end game and working cooperatively and with respect. The ex is what I think of as an anxious bully (fear aggressive) and he has interpersonal problems in most arenas. His perception of me was of someone who wants control. I don’t. I will, however, lead in a vacuum, and in matters of home and family, where I have strong background and even stronger opinion, I want the lead if I announce that I know best. But things that shouldn’t have been a fight, were. Sex was muddied by the dynamic, too.

He was stunned when, during the breakup, I took control for real and began voicing my thoughts and decisions without regard for his need to feel validated. There’s a line in a Disney movie, Lilo and Stitch, that came to mind occasionally: “Thus far you have been adrift in the sheltered harbor of my patience…” I don’t think the ex had any inkling of the degree to which I smoothed and deferred and made it easier to be him. He made spectacularly poor choices in a lot of regards (a very depressed guy) and would fight to the death to defend his right to make them. I don’t think I submitted to him as much as accepted to keep the peace, because we had no means to negotiate differences.

However, that’s the negative piece…in most regards we managed just fine, since we had similar long term goals and neither of us wanted to make the other sad. He’s a kind, generous guy when not feeling threatened, and I’m pretty sweet and easy-going, so mostly it was a harmonious thing and from the outside we looked great.

In my current relationship things are much less confusing, though I acknowledge that it may be the short duration. He is very easy with command and decision-making, but is also very comfortable with shared decision-making. In the case of a disaster he would take the lead as he is knowledgeable about infrastructure and geography, and also has weapons and the will to use them, and I acknowledge that completely. He defers if anything medical or mental health comes up because I’m our man there. I decide what constitutes “clean” and “healthy” and he decides what constitutes “adequately provisioned” and “time to leave in order to arrive on time.”

We consult on most everything and both offer unsolicited advice freely without anyone getting ruffled (the ex took this as me trying to tell him what to do). I don’t know who/how final decisions are made, we don’t have enough time in, but I think they won’t be a problem. Everything to this point has been about both of us being comfortable, with each of us invested in doing the right thing by the other.

There is a definite element of ME MAN YOU WOMAN, but for us that seems to have to do with each of our relational styles and having a really lovely matching up of them more than any final say issues. If he felt strongly about something I would undoubtedly defer, just because it would seem like the right thing to do. But I think he would, too. Isn’t that what loving someone means?

[/quote]

Hey, Emily. Thanks for sharing your story. When people start talking about how this actually applies in their life, I think we come closer to understanding where people are really coming from, instead of getting caught up in the semantics.

When you talk about your current relationship, it reminds me very much of my own. I would describe us as more of a partnership, or as I mentioned earlier, two complementary halves. We can always talk around something until we reach a consensus, or a compromise. I can’t remember the last time we didn’t discuss all the facts, and still come out as polar opposites. Maybe never. It helps when both of you want the other person to be happy, so if you can see it’s something they care a lot about, then it makes sense to let that person’s views hold sway or to “defer” to each other. And we try to tell the other person “yes” whenever we can. We have very similar views on money, so that’s been pretty easy. He earns it, and I spend it. LOL! Kidding. There’s some division of decision making in our family too. My husband’s the electronics person, so I’m happy to let him figure all that stuff out. That sort of thing.

Some of what you said reminded me so much of things Gabby Reece talked about in the video clip. She talked about how some of the dysfunction early in her marriage stemmed from her trying to adapt and cope with her husband’s mood swings. She also interpreted her experience, in relation to gender roles, or at least her expectation of gender roles gone haywire.

233

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

Glad to hear they figured it out. I’ve had some fantastic female bosses. My first boss helped me so much. She was so bright, and such a great mentor. My husband’s current boss is also a really supportive woman, who lets competent people do their thing, but will go out of her way to find strengths in people or train them.

I’ve only had to directly answer to one of these QUEEN types, in my school psychologist days. I caught on pretty quickly when several different teachers told me about how she made them cry or set them up to embarrassed them in front of others. She liked to make criterion, and then change them, so people were constantly confused about what they needed to do to please her. Lots of gaslighting.

She could act around very different with men. In this case, there was also flirting and an affair. She was a classic “people are tools” type. She did not build “friendships” unless it was with someone in a position of power over her. She could be very subtle in undermining, and selectively ignoring, but when nobody else was around to observe, she’d drop the pretense and be downright nasty to other women. I thought maybe I was nuts, until my boss told me that her “leadership style” was a longstanding problem everyone was aware of, but due to the fact that she was a tenured principal, they were unable to do much about it. Another principal told me that she was a legend in “what not to do”, and proceeded to tell lots of crazy stories. The previous psychologist at that school told me they called her “The Nazi.” They even gave her a male Vice Principal who was gay as a strategy, because so many women had refused to work under her. Yep. It was ugly.

I’ve seen other women do it to each other. I’m not sure they are consciously aware that they do it, or why. Men can do this sort of thing too, but I the dynamics are different.

[/quote]

In my case, she pissed in the wrong cheerios. In reality, she had built a network of support and trust among the male colleagues and women she thought would provide her the best opportunity to succeed. When she’d established what she thought was a comfortable safety net, she started doing crazy things, things which were ALL offenses that could lead to termination. Her downfall was secured when the DM (whom she was sleeping with, and was her primary safety net) was fired (honestly, the look on her face when we got the news was priceless). It took awhile for HR to do their thing, but only because she’d been doing so much crap that they needed to sort it all out. Her web of deceit and lies was so vast that despite it being quite clear what she was doing, several whom she wooed still think she was set up.

234

[quote]Cortes wrote:
There is no such thing as equality. None. [/quote]

Cortes, thanks for the kind words to me in this thread. You described men and women as being like the heart and lungs. Not equal, but equally VITAL. Complementary parts. Thanks for trying to point out some of the nuances.

Our culture puts a high value on equality. And independence. BUT we can’t all be independent all the time. There is something to be gained in our interdependence. I like the idea of different, but complementary.

“Equality” can be very hard to try to measure. Is an apple equal to an orange? They are both fruit. It’s a one to one ratio. But you can’t say they are equal. That’s a bit how I see SOME of the aspects of a marriage. On many levels, we are just equal individuals. Or since we’re both religious, we know we are all equal to God. He is no respecter of persons.

Csulli - Thanks for bringing the humor with that clip. I lol’d.

Funny Story - My 70-year-old mom prides her self on her independence. I have to say, I’m very proud of her. She’s been painting the exterior of her rental house all by herself. Who does that? And at 70? But this week she moved a big side-by-side refrigerator out onto the porch all by herself, without waiting for my dad to help. He was so ANGRY! He asserted his dominance by calling the chiropractor, putting her in the car, and chewing her out for being “so independent” all the way to the doctor’s office. :slight_smile:

EDIT: This is Tnaation, and I’ve heard men are visual. Maybe instead of an apple and an orange, it would have been better to say banana and peach. :wink:

235

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

EDIT: This is Tnaation, and I’ve heard men are visual. Maybe instead of an apple and an orange, it would have been better to say banana and peach. :wink: [/quote]

Or Banana and Taco. I know that is bad, but I could not help myself. Continue.

236

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
There is no such thing as equality. None. [/quote]

Cortes, thanks for the kind words to me in this thread. You described men and women as being like the heart and lungs. Not equal, but equally VITAL. Complementary parts. Thanks for trying to point out some of the nuances.

Our culture puts a high value on equality. And independence. BUT we can’t all be independent all the time. There is something to be gained in our interdependence. I like the idea of different, but complementary.

“Equality” can be very hard to try to measure. Is an apple equal to an orange? They are both fruit. It’s a one to one ratio. But you can’t say they are equal. That’s a bit how I see SOME of the aspects of a marriage. On many levels, we are just equal individuals. Or since we’re both religious, we know we are all equal to God. He is no respecter of persons.

[/quote]

PP, as usual, you and I appear to be pretty much of the same mind here. “Equally vital” is exactly what I intended to convey.

I decided not to get too deep into it this time because I’ve said it more than once in past threads of this nature, but I have NEVER suggested that the male role is in any way superior to the female. As far as a family goes, you need both. Humans DO possess both masculine and feminine traits, and the best arrangement we have is that of a mother and a father raising their children together, in harmony. That means that, despite any role he may assume, the father’s leadership is meaningless without the mother’s cooperation, and his so-called dominance is predicated upon the accord and happiness of the family he is charged with protecting and rearing.

There are certain roles that I just cannot do. I do not possess the kind of patient, nurturing, empathetic caregiver spirit that my wife is blessed with. There are times when my parenting style is not what my kids need, or times when I just don’t have the patience that she does in dealing with two whining, crying, complaining, house-wrecking, unappreciative, wonderful, cuddly, fun, precious awesome little boys.

There are other times, just as VITAL, but in a completely different sense, that my boys need someone to roughhouse and act stupid with, or, occasionally, they need to be made to understand an important lesson about a potentially dangerous truth in a way that (God how it annoys me that I have type out these parenthetical caveats typically) only a father can.

My wife and I complete each other. I do not hold myself above her, nor do I believe her to be one iota inferior to me. Indeed, she is a far better person than I am, and I consciously strive to be more like her. She is far less given to temptation or temper than I am. Much more patient. And orders of magnitude more selfless. I’m too often a slave to my passion and energy.

So, in what I hope to be my final definitive word on this subject in this thread, I would ask that people focus a little less on the dynamic of a power struggle (a false projection or outright misrepresentation) and a little more on that of a team of people, each fulfilling the role and duties for which he is biologically and innately suited, each working selflessly for the benefit of the whole before himself.

Does that make sense?

237

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
There is no such thing as equality. None. [/quote]

Our culture puts a high value on equality. And independence. BUT we can’t all be independent all the time. There is something to be gained in our interdependence. I like the idea of different, but complementary.

“Equality” can be very hard to try to measure. Is an apple equal to an orange? They are both fruit. It’s a one to one ratio. But you can’t say they are equal. That’s a bit how I see SOME of the aspects of a marriage. On many levels, we are just equal individuals. Or since we’re both religious, we know we are all equal to God. He is no respecter of persons.
[/quote]

The problem we are faced with is the cultural hi-jacking of what is meant “created equal”. It is obvious that there are unequal distributions of talents, attractive looks, intelligence, wisdom, etc among individuals. You can’t fix that, regardless of how hard you try. This is what people assume the founding fathers, and the ideas the Declaration of Independence is based on, mean: that we’ve all got equal amounts of talents, intelligence, etc. That simply isn’t true. If that isn’t true, that what does the phrase “all men were created equal” mean? Simply put, that all human beings, regardless of sex, race, nationality, creed, age, level of maturation, etc are inherently equal in that they are all human beings. They possess the same human dignity and the same inalienable rights.

239

[quote]Cortes wrote:
My wife and I complete each other. I do not hold myself above her, nor do I believe her to be one iota inferior to me. Indeed, she is a far better person than I am, and I consciously strive to be more like her. She is far less given to temptation or temper than I am. Much more patient. And orders of magnitude more selfless. I’m too often a slave to my passion and energy.

So, in what I hope to be my final definitive word on this subject in this thread, I would ask that people focus a little less on the dynamic of a power struggle (a false projection or outright misrepresentation) and a little more on that of a team of people, each fulfilling the role and duties for which he is biologically and innately suited, each working selflessly for the benefit of the whole before himself.

Does that make sense? [/quote]

Very eloquently put. The part about your wife making being a better person than you describes me as well. And your two parts of the same body comparison earlier (I must have missed it somehow) is spot on. I am still convinced that a lot of the people operate with the same dynamic that you or I do, the labels are just missing. Which, honestly, my wife and I have never labeled it as such either. It just is the roles that we assumed.

240

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
There is no such thing as equality. None. [/quote]

Our culture puts a high value on equality. And independence. BUT we can’t all be independent all the time. There is something to be gained in our interdependence. I like the idea of different, but complementary.

“Equality” can be very hard to try to measure. Is an apple equal to an orange? They are both fruit. It’s a one to one ratio. But you can’t say they are equal. That’s a bit how I see SOME of the aspects of a marriage. On many levels, we are just equal individuals. Or since we’re both religious, we know we are all equal to God. He is no respecter of persons.
[/quote]

The problem we are faced with is the cultural hi-jacking of what is meant “created equal”. It is obvious that there are unequal distributions of talents, attractive looks, intelligence, wisdom, etc among individuals. You can’t fix that, regardless of how hard you try. This is what people assume the founding fathers, and the ideas the Declaration of Independence is based on, mean: that we’ve all got equal amounts of talents, intelligence, etc. That simply isn’t true. If that isn’t true, that what does the phrase “all men were created equal” mean? Simply put, that all human beings, regardless of sex, race, nationality, creed, age, level of maturation, etc are inherently equal in that they are all human beings. They possess the same human dignity and the same inalienable rights.
[/quote]

Once again, excellent post. We all have such a unique set of traits. Even when we strive for equal opportunities, there will be unequal outcomes. We could go off on a whole tangent about this topic alone, but that’s another thread.

Cortes - Yes. That makes perfect sense. Thanks for taking the time.

DMaddox - Glad someone appreciated my third grade fruit humor. I know, I usually check it here because it goes down hill quickly. BTW, a banana and peach are not only both fruit, but they could make a really nice smoothie. Putting a banana and a taco in a blender is just wrong.

Thanks everyone for talking. This thread went by so fast, I apologize for not keeping up with all the responses. It’s been interesting. I’m still disappointed that Steely didn’t get all offended at my kitchen joke. Oh, well. You can’t have everything.

Topics for my next thread…

Can Puff Do the Bald Look?

Should Puff Grow A Beard?

Would TRT Help Puff Be More Awesome and Grow a Great Beard?