[quote]th_underdog wrote:
Christ. No wonder there were so many skeletons in the closet and infidelity issues then. The only thing that’s changed is the divorce rate. I think I’d go crazy in that era.[/quote]
So…
[quote]RankHypocrisy wrote:
If you can present any evidence to back up your claim, please present it.[/quote]
Hey this is a discussion of how a wife should treat her husband…JK…
I pose another q.
Did this breakdown or re-definition of sex roles create the Metro man?
[quote]SicTorn wrote:
What pissed me off is the bit about the man being the master of the house and lord and commander of the known universe and is not to be questioned.
[/quote]
Boy, have you got a lot to learn.
I think American women are spoiled. Anywhere else the women not have an " independent woman " orientation and instead be more family oriented. this means that they and we will be much easier to deal w/ in husband and wife situations. I think we need to go back to the burka
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
I think American women are spoiled. Anywhere else the women not have an " independent woman " orientation and instead be more family oriented. this means that they and we will be much easier to deal w/ in husband and wife situations. I think we need to go back to the burka
http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html[/quote]
Good luck, man. Nothing going on in North America leads me to believe that desexualisation and returning back to more puritan values will not happen before the next generation. Attention spans are down, people want it all … right now, media keep on dumbing down the content each year, victims and wusses are on the rise, etc. Its all short-term and profit oriented. To a drone target population, the sex sells` law is one of the most reliable, and thus one has to expect even more sex than in the past, not. Not only does it work, it is being rewarded like it has never been in the past. So … good luck with the burka dream.
From the same site ThaBigDon24 suggested:
The therapist suggests that the wife stop nagging and the husband listen. She doesn’t notice that the husband responds only after the wife starts to cry.
Men respond to vulnerability in a woman not power. As I have said before, heterosexual love involves the exchange of power for love. Men want power. Women want love. The female surrenders and allows the male to protect and possess her.
In return for her acquiescence, the male loves her in the full sense of the word. He is in charge but he also wants to make her happy. This is natural when someone makes you happy.
Women need to give men the power to love them. My wife’s mother gave her daughter good advice: “Look for a man to take care of you but be able to take care of yourself.”
Gold.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
SicTorn wrote:
What pissed me off is the bit about the man being the master of the house and lord and commander of the known universe and is not to be questioned.
Boy, have you got a lot to learn.[/quote]
No, I really don’t. Mine doesn’t treat me like that.
[quote]SicTorn wrote:
slimjim wrote:
SicTorn wrote:
What pissed me off is the bit about the man being the master of the house and lord and commander of the known universe and is not to be questioned.
Boy, have you got a lot to learn.
No, I really don’t. Mine doesn’t treat me like that.[/quote]
Wow, not only do you do you get offended and act all defensive when someone tells a joke, when someone tries to turn it back into a joke you respond like he was serious. Lighten up a little.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
I think American women are spoiled. Anywhere else the women not have an " independent woman " orientation and instead be more family oriented. this means that they and we will be much easier to deal w/ in husband and wife situations. I think we need to go back to the burka
http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html[/quote]
ha! you and your right hand are gonna become pretty close. lol
[quote]th_underdog wrote:
]RankHypocrisy wrote:
Or the difference could be that now a lot of infidelity is occurring, whereas before it was not. Would that not explain things just as well?
[/quote]
The phrase I used was ‘a lot’ of infidelity, so I was saying that before ‘a lot’ of infidelity was not occurring, not that none at all was occurring.
The pronoun ‘it’ was referring to the subject of the previous clause, which was ‘a lot of infidelity’ not simply ‘infidelity.’
[quote]th_underdog wrote:
Actually, I didn’t say there was more infidelity in the 50’s than now. Your above statement is the only testament to that. I said this…
[quote]th_underdog wrote:
Christ. No wonder there were so many skeletons in the closet and infidelity issues then. The only thing that’s changed is the divorce rate. I think I’d go crazy in that era.[/quote][/quote]
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but by saying there were ‘so’ many ‘then’, you seem to imply that there were more then than there are currently.
[quote]RankHypocrisy wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but by saying there were ‘so’ many ‘then’, you seem to imply that there were more then than there are currently.[/quote]
I think we both could say that. I understand your point.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
SicTorn wrote:
slimjim wrote:
SicTorn wrote:
What pissed me off is the bit about the man being the master of the house and lord and commander of the known universe and is not to be questioned.
Boy, have you got a lot to learn.
No, I really don’t. Mine doesn’t treat me like that.
Wow, not only do you do you get offended and act all defensive when someone tells a joke, when someone tries to turn it back into a joke you respond like he was serious. Lighten up a little.[/quote]
I wasn’t offended. I suppose I should use smiley faces or something to convey the non-seriousness of my tone. 
There.
[quote]RankHypocrisy wrote:
th_underdog wrote:
Actually, I didn’t say there was more infidelity in the 50’s than now. Your above statement is the only testament to that. I said this…
th_underdog wrote:
Christ. No wonder there were so many skeletons in the closet and infidelity issues then. The only thing that’s changed is the divorce rate. I think I’d go crazy in that era.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but by saying there were ‘so’ many ‘then’, you seem to imply that there were more then than there are currently.[/quote]
The difference in infedelity between the 50’s and now is that it is, unfortunately, more “accepted” now than it was then. If you stepped out on your marriage back then, you were more likely to be chastized by the community as a whole.
These days it doesn’t seem to be a big deal. Divorce is easily obtained with very little repurcussion (socially- not financially). Therefore people don’t have to think long and hard before getting married or before stepping out on their spouse.
As a whole (and not just on the divorce issue), we are too politically correct to hold anyone to the consequences of their own decisions anymore.
As for the list- I took it home to my wife. She got a kick out of it. She even took it in to work to show some friends. She (like me) agrees that there is SOME merit to a few of the points made in there. It’s a shame it is presented in such a chauvenistic viewpoint that nobody would take it seriously. I think we all can agree that it’s bad to bombard your spouse with issues right as they walk in the door from work. Of course, all of the valid points (you know, the ones obscured by the know your role statement) work both ways.
[quote]mica617 wrote:
RankHypocrisy wrote:
th_underdog wrote:
Actually, I didn’t say there was more infidelity in the 50’s than now. Your above statement is the only testament to that. I said this…
th_underdog wrote:
Christ. No wonder there were so many skeletons in the closet and infidelity issues then. The only thing that’s changed is the divorce rate. I think I’d go crazy in that era.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but by saying there were ‘so’ many ‘then’, you seem to imply that there were more then than there are currently.
The difference in infedelity between the 50’s and now is that it is, unfortunately, more “accepted” now than it was then. If you stepped out on your marriage back then, you were more likely to be chastized by the community as a whole.
These days it doesn’t seem to be a big deal. Divorce is easily obtained with very little repurcussion (socially- not financially). Therefore people don’t have to think long and hard before getting married or before stepping out on their spouse.
As a whole (and not just on the divorce issue), we are too politically correct to hold anyone to the consequences of their own decisions anymore.
As for the list- I took it home to my wife. She got a kick out of it. She even took it in to work to show some friends. She (like me) agrees that there is SOME merit to a few of the points made in there. It’s a shame it is presented in such a chauvenistic viewpoint that nobody would take it seriously. I think we all can agree that it’s bad to bombard your spouse with issues right as they walk in the door from work. Of course, all of the valid points (you know, the ones obscured by the know your role statement) work both ways.[/quote]
Good points. We all need to be equall contributors to the house and relationships. Whoever makes the cash and works does not get any leg up, and I agree with that.