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

ok so I didn't have time to read it all

but I see two kinds of women (that I'm going to talk about here)
I'm probably going to be deleted because my views aren't nearly as valid as yours

I am all for a strong woman
STRONG
fiscally savvy
mentally hard
the ability to reason and solve problems
confident in themselves (body, abilites, etc)


I know these women exist
but they are few and far between
many of them are "man haters" which I think is a problem with the way they view women
I think most women aren't stong enough for their (the man haters) standards and since they can't drag women up they seek to tear men down


now for those of you who don't know, I have a wife (sorry about pic size)


I'm not bragging, just telling you what the score is
back the the post

I love my wife
I would like her to be that strong woman (except the man hater part)
we have taken some tests and she is very smart
we have played some logic games
she scores well

she has a BS degree
she speaks 4 languages

now that I have that out of the way, let me get to the meat

I love my wife
with the exception of a few issues (who doesn't have issues?)
she is an excellent wife

BUT
since I have taken control of the house things are running MUCH more smoothly

We've hashed out the gender stereotypes.
" Honey, when are you going to fix the car?"
(after a long day)
" I'll get to it this week, I had a long day and I'm done.
If you are THAT worried then you go fix it!"

"You are the man, YOU are supposed to fix things!"
(walked right into it)

"Yeah? Then go make me a sandwich and get me a beer!"

" OH "

I don't like the answers either because it seems like
JERK
Sissie
are the only ones.

I can be a jerk but only when needed, but I'm also very persuasive and gentle most times.
I use the Socratic method to win her to my way of thinking, or to highlight the folly of her reasoning.
I don't threaten force, I don't need to.
Someone said "iron fist in a velvet glove"
but if the velvet is soft enough they may not even feel the force that the fist is applying

I'm going to say again that I love my wife, because of what I am about to say.
This is going to sound blatantly sexist, but I'm just trying say that there are innate differences between men and women and these WILL NOT be overcome because they aren't a handicap TO BE overcome.
it's just the way things are

Men
Is a wrench a screwdriver?
Is it a hammer?
Could it be snap ring pliers?

would you do well to try and use a hammer as a wrench, or pliers as a screwdriver?
No

often when my wife asks me a question, she really is asking me to tell her what to do
I don't do it as " YOU DO THIS!"
rather it is " Well, I would pick that whatever because......"
then list some good reasons and praise her for picking it
otherwise I'm coming back later to make the decision myself or have an argument about it

the fact is that she doesn't WANT to make the decision or she wouldn't have asked me

I'm making these about my wife so as not to be deleted for sexism
even if you are simply pointing out basic truths people will scream sexism

fact is
she sucks at fixing cars
I'm grate at it (very very good mechanic, better than most in shops)
I suck at cleaning the house
she can clean the entire house before I can do one room

where is the harm in seeing things for what they are?
where is the damage?

it is not hateful to call a spade a spade
it is logical
of course feminism argues against logic

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

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

listen man
women and men don't have to be equal

I'm not saying one or the other is better
I'm saying that they are DIFFERENT

to try to make them the same is folly

men ans women are not numbers
perhaps they are letters

so you tell me which is greater

a M
or
a W

they are the same, but different
why must one be better than the other?

Originally Posted by jockeys

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.

This is definitely a point at which you and I will never agree. I would go so far as to say that our paradigms are so wildly different that you and I probably cannot even effectively communicate on the subject. I say mutual love and respect, and taking care of eachother; you hear subjegation, degredation and enforced superiority. You say independence, taking care of yourself, total equality and uniformity, and I hear heartlessness, coldness, selfishness and a lack of all the things that make spending your life with another person worth while.

All I can say is that I tried it your way before I grew up, and the marriage ended in infidelity and divorce after just under 2 years. I sincerely hope that it works better for you.

Personally, I think that it is far better to take care of each other. Granted, the ability to take care of yourself if highly important, but to take care of each other builds love and trust.

Originally Posted by jockeys

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

Actually, I agree completely. That's why I didn't let you get away with throwing one more verse, which looks completely different out of context.

I think that both are perfectly relevant, but both are only relevant when considered in context. Both in the full context of the chapter as I pointed out by referencing how that chapter concludes, and also within the context of when/where it was written. A marriage (in 45 states) is still a union between a man and a woman. Slavery is more or less gone from our world, not all translations even use the word slave, and the definition of the word slave has not been the same throughout history. (example: Victorian erra England, a person would sell themselves into temporary slavery as a way to pay a master craftsman who would train them as an apprentice. For litterary example, see "Great Expectations")

Originally Posted by jockeys

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.

That's so far off topic, that I wouldn't touch it at all if I could help myself, which I can't. I'll keep it as short as I can though.

If you've spent time in theological school, you should be as aware as anyone that which translations are most accurate is, has been, and forever shall be a source of enormous debate in the judao-christian community. Whether the KJV or NIV is more accurate depends largely upond whether you are part of a protestant or orthodox religion. I can assure you that in Catholic seminary (having spoken to priests on the subject in the past) you would have heard very similar views expressed, except it would be the NIV, NLT, BBE, LITV and other translations that were the brunt of jokes.

One thing I think we can both agree on, is that unless a person speaks half a dozen languages, including several dead languages (Sanskrit, etc), and has the most historically significant colleciton of ancient bible texts ever imagined by modern man, there is no single, authoritative, guaranteed to be accurate translation of the bible.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

One thing I think we can both agree on, is that unless a person speaks half a dozen languages, including several dead languages (Sanskrit, etc), and has the most historically significant colleciton of ancient bible texts ever imagined by modern man, there is no single, authoritative, guaranteed to be accurate translation of the bible.

I do not believe the translations are the problem, but the interpretation by those trying to make it fit their consense instead of letting it interpret itself. After saying this I guess we ought to make this a private discussion instead of boring the folks on the forum.

wow

my posts didn't get deleted

and Paco actually thanked me !

I'm flabbergasted

[QUOTE=gratewhitehuntr;381538]wow

my posts didn't get deleted

and Paco actually thanked me !

I'm flabbergasted [/QUOTE

Why wouldn't I thank you, there's nothing in my posts saying men and women are not equal. If someone thinks I meant that the post was not understood by them.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

This is definitely a point at which you and I will never agree. I would go so far as to say that our paradigms are so wildly different that you and I probably cannot even effectively communicate on the subject.

If you've spent time in theological school, you should be as aware as anyone that which translations are most accurate is, has been, and forever shall be a source of enormous debate in the judao-christian community. Whether the KJV or NIV is more accurate depends largely upond whether you are part of a protestant or orthodox religion. I can assure you that in Catholic seminary (having spoken to priests on the subject in the past) you would have heard very similar views expressed, except it would be the NIV, NLT, BBE, LITV and other translations that were the brunt of jokes.

1. agreed. it was discussed in a very gentlemanly way, but i think we've moved to the point where a fork to another thread may be called for.
2. also agreed. the theological school I went to was Baptist, mostly, so you can imagine there was a lot of slant there.

Originally Posted by paco

I do not believe the translations are the problem, but the interpretation by those trying to make it fit their consense instead of letting it interpret itself. After saying this I guess we ought to make this a private discussion instead of boring the folks on the forum.

1. the translation is very much a problem. if the translation is wrong, how can you EVER have the correct interpretation? (defined by inductive scholars and the single interpretation intended by the author at the moment of writing.)
2. agreed. wanna start another thread?

Am I a manly man? Yes! I asked my wife so I could share an unbiased opinion and when I asked she giggled, smiled and said " Sure, why not."

My wife and I treat each other as equals. Not physically, but morally.

We have an unspoken agreement about who takes care of what.
She takes care of the household, I take care of the house.
She picks colors and designs, I pick tools and materials.
She never ever comments about what tools I buy or things I do, and I never ever comment on her design choices.
She takes care of the household when I am in MA class, and I take care of it when she is playing squash.

Important things get decided in concensus.
It's a system that works.

Equality does not mean doing the same things. It means being able to make decisions together and dividing responsibilities.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Equality does not mean doing the same things. It means being able to make decisions together and dividing responsibilities.

well said. my wife and i divy up the chores at the beginning of each year. for instance, this year i agreed to do all the laundry and sewing if she did the taxes. i definitely came out ahead on that one