Thread: Are you a manly man or a girly man?

I am the girliest of men in that I am actually a woman. However, I say what needs saying and expect the same in return. The only way to hash things out is to know what's really going on.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It must be some sort of acquisiton disorder

oh that's shad (say it out loud)

Originally Posted by JMS

This was actually intended to be on the funny side. I had no idea anyone would be offended.

VeeDubb65, Some men do things because...

..This sort is not a man either...

...if a man gives up his integrity and what is good and proper to do for the sake of a relationship and a womans approval then what kind of man is he. And can such a relationship stand the test of time?

I already responded to this in the IRC channel a few days ago, but I'll repeat my response here and expand on it for the sake of conversation.

First of all, I was not remotely offended by the post, but simply chose to speak my mind honestly on the subject. I just said "what needed saying."

I think you're right on track here. I don't think the sort of relationship you described could ever stand the test of time, unless the woman was even more weak, and that's not a woman I would want to be with. I want a woman who can be a strong wife and mother. Take care of my home, and take care of me, and a woman who can respect and appreciate all I do for her, just as I respect and appreciate what she does for me. I thank God every day that the woman I'm dating is just such a woman, and I doubt it will be all that long before we move past dating. I'd have proposed already if I was in a more respectable financial position.

There is a delicate balance between being an honest man and keeping a happy relationship. It's a balance that I'm the first to admit to having failed maintaining in the past. (I've been divorced about 3 years as a result)

My response was based on the fact that I didn't see any responses which reflected maintaining this balance. To me, the first 3 options all failed to be an honest self respecting man, and the 4th failed to be a "real man" which in my book, includes treating your SO with respect.

I think it's critically important that a man be strong and honest and say what needs to be said, but to never be thoughtless about, OR fearful of, the consequences.

If the pole had included something just short of that 4th response, I'd have voted for it in a heartbeat.

Great post!!

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

I want a woman who can be a strong wife and mother. Take care of my home, and take care of me,

it's an odd blend of sad and funny that people still think that way.

Originally Posted by jockeys

it's an odd blend of sad and funny that people still think that way.

No offense, but I would say it's an odd blend of sad and funny that so few people think that way these days.

I also find it to be just plain sad that anyone would be so impressed by that line, and not seem to take notice of the line that followed: "a woman who can respect and appreciate all I do for her, just as I respect and appreciate what she does for me."

Serious question, what exactly do you find wrong with a relationship where two people take care of each other by each doing their own part? Equality of rights isn't the same thing as uniformity of responsibilities.

As I've said before, if a woman would rather have a job than a family, that is certainly her right, just as a man could choose a career over family, instead of keeping to work that would allow him to actually be a father, which is a sadly rare thing these days.

Children need to have parents who are home. No daycare in the world, even the care of other relative, could ever be a substitute for having real parents in the home.

If you're to avoid having someone else raise your children, the only two options are to either have one person who's job is to earn money, and one person who's job is to raise the children and run the home, or to have both people split both duties by working schedules that allow them to trade off, i.e.: Mom works day shift, dad works swing shift.

The problem with the second option, is that you and your spouse only see each other on the weekends, and your children only get to see their parents together on the weekends. If that's the life you would want for yourself and your family, or if you really don't mind having someone else raise your children while you're at work, that's your business. But it's certainly not the life I want for me and mine.

Colossians 3:18-20
Rules for Christian Families

¹⁸ Wives, follow the lead of your husbands. That's what the Lord wants you to do.
¹⁹ Husbands, love your wives. Don't be mean to them. ²⁰ Children, obey your parents in everything. That pleases the Lord.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

No offense, but I would say it's an odd blend of sad and funny that so few people think that way these days.

agree to disagree, then. the way you said "take care of my home" sort of rubbed me the wrong way. smacks of sexism.

Originally Posted by paco

Colossians 3:18-20
Rules for Christian Families

¹⁸ Wives, follow the lead of your husbands. That's what the Lord wants you to do.
¹⁹ Husbands, love your wives. Don't be mean to them. ²⁰ Children, obey your parents in everything. That pleases the Lord.

since you mention it, why not mention a verse from the same chapter:
^"22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." (NIV, dunno what translation you were using, must be some modern one I'm not familiar with)

your passages and mine both indicate an archaic, obsolete system where some people were worth more than others. maybe it's just me, but I like to think that all people are worth the same, and not inherently subject to the whims of another. but hey, that's just me and my crazy egalitarian ideas about intrapersonal equality and nonsubjugation.

Originally Posted by jockeys

your passages and mine both indicate an archaic, obsolete system where some people were worth more than others. maybe it's just me, but I like to think that all people are worth the same, and not inherently subject to the whims of another. but hey, that's just me and my crazy egalitarian ideas about intrapersonal equality and nonsubjugation.

Well firstly, I do agree to disagree. I never really engage in these conversations with the goal of changing another person's mind. It's about the joy of debating an interesting issue.

Now, to get down to the meat of it, when you talk about subjugation, you're "honing" right it on my previous retort. You, and probably a lot of other people, would read what I said, and take such a (forgive me) brainwashed feminist exception to the idea of the woman taking care of the home, that they skip right over the part about mutual respect and appreciation for all that the two do for each other. If your world view is so wildly different from mine that you view two people each taking their share of responsibilities, and each working hard all the time to take care of each other in a loving appreciative and respectful way as subjugation, I'm not really sure how to communicate with you.

Between the 3 of us, the only person talking about inequality and subjugation (until this response) has been you.

Also, as far as that bit about slavery is concerned, I think it's taken quite a bit out of context. I'm all for answering verse with verse, but I think you missed the mark on this one.

I first typed out a fairly long response to this part, but that's getting way too off topic. Suffice it to say, I think you're taking that verse well out of context, as the definition of slavery today, and in the time Colossians was written, are two very different things.

Also, many people, myself included, find the NIV to be a dubious translation at best. The King James bible reads as follows: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God."

Note the complete lack of the words "slave" and "slavery" in the older translation. Also not the very clear sugestion that when you serve others, it should be out of internal and divine motivation, rather than out of subjugation.....

It also continues on to explain in so many words that you should do whatever you do heartily, for God and not for men, because the reward comes from serving Christ. Context is an important thing.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Well firstly, I do agree to disagree. I never really engage in these conversations with the goal of changing another person's mind. It's about the joy of debating an interesting issue.

completely agree with you here.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

You, and probably a lot of other people, would read what I said, and take such a (forgive me) brainwashed feminist exception to the idea of the woman taking care of the home, that they skip right over the part about mutual respect and appreciation for all that the two do for each other. If your world view is so wildly different from mine that you view two people each taking their share of responsibilities, and each working hard all the time to take care of each other in a loving appreciative and respectful way as subjugation, I'm not really sure how to communicate with you.

1. no, i caught that part. i just think it was nullified by the statement right before it. to me it would be like saying, "i hate white people, but i'm not racist." the first part nullifies the second, because i see them as being at odds.
2. i do feel that way. it's my view that you should take care of yourself, first and foremost. my wife feels the same way, and we are both happy and taken care of. i am aware that this is a rather unpopular worldview, but it is what i believe.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

I first typed out a fairly long response to this part, but that's getting way too off topic. Suffice it to say, I think you're taking that verse well out of context, as the definition of slavery today, and in the time Colossians was written, are two very different things.

Also, many people, myself included, find the NIV to be a dubious translation at best. The King James bible reads as follows: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God."

1. the context of MARRIAGE has also changed in the last 2000 years. so i would say the verses are either both applicable, or neither. seems rather convenient that parts of it stay relevant and parts of it don't and the one quoting it gets to choose
2. I spent 5 years at a theological school, where the KJV was consistently ridiculed as being "a very good translation of a very poor manuscript." it is wildly inconsistent with many of the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts found since the KJV was written. not saying the NIV was perfect, but it was considered to be a more accurate translation, at least 10 years ago.