The hypocritical and liberal news media has done a hatchet job on Hillary. They have focused on her pants suits and other feminine stuff instead of her message. No, I don't want her as President either, but there you go.

Heinlein was a big believer in the strength of women as am I. Oh, I didn't say perfect, just tons of women out there have great strength and character and courage, etc. Which is what led me to the question: What's this about protecting women? Heck, sometimes I think it is the MEN who need protecting

Yet protecting women IS the culture. So why is that if women are so strong? Is there a level of hypocrisy amongst the conventional wisdom of women, kinda like blacks who play the race card when they get into a corner based on something foolish they did? Or like a teenager blame shifting?

I really don't know and was looking for opinions - and I got some, but want more if anyone cares to share.

Its been a long day here. Will reply to everyone else tomorrow who posted. Thanks. . .

Larry

Wrkinghrd,

You said
Actually I believe there is at least one more possibility and frankly it is the one I beleive about Hillary, who I don't care for, but I don't care for Bill either. They deserve one another in my opinion.

The next option is that SHE KNOWS that crying affects men and she uses it to her advantage. I personally think that is Hillary. She didn't lose any votes with her emotional outburst, she probably felt she gained a few sympathy votes, from those that like a "victim".

I trained my sons and my daughter to never cry under duress. They could do so in private or with family but NOT under duress.
Why? In sports or combat you cannot see when you cry, being blind in those situation is very bad news. In the world of business or other relations it is precisely when some is or has hurt you that you MUST SEE THEM CLEARLY. You can then know how to respond, attack, or defend. You cannot do it if you cannot see or for that matter hear (blowing the nose tends to interfer with hearing).

My point crying is not good in public and it means you are vulnerable, not merely shows you are weak.

Having said that, I would like to respond to Larry's question.

Men, me included and even my sons wonder how to treat the "modern" woman. We get the full dose of "I am woman hear me roar." And then get "you need to protect me."

My youngest actually came home from the 5th grade stating that he wished he was a girl. I asked why. He said "men are just bad", I asked what made him think that? It seems his teacher had a discussion about "boys" and the things they do wrong, and apparently the girls felt emboldened to jump in and carry this on for the rest of the class. The boys just sat there, not knowing what to do, because the teacher apparently encouraged this stuff.

I don't see women as weak, other than physically (WNBA is a joke). But I do see them use the "victim" approach often. I do see them use the "You can't say anything to me I am a woman."

So what is it to be ladies? Pick your poison, men that just stand aside (an then complain that he is "not interested" he doesn't initiate) or men that take the initiative? One thing is for sure men are not mind readers.

But, I don't know if this is where Larry is going. I will say growing up I was in many more fights protecting male friends of mine that female. So fighting for someone you care about as a friend doesn't seem to be gender specific to me.

As for it being a man's world, that is only the business part as far as I can tell, and that is because men built it. When women build companies I have noticed that they seem to prefer hiring women, not men. Think there is a glass ceiling for men? Yup.

But then again a glass ceiling is why many men leave a company and start their own. I would expect women will do the same.

My point is I don't see women needing protection unless it is from physical assault. Then you bet. But, I would protect a man being assaulted as well. I don't like people being picked on very much.

So WrkngHrd, where does that put me? Probably just foolish I guess.

I look forward to reading more on this thread. It is very interesting.

JL

If I can offer one possible answer to the question you posed, JL, it would "in the same American culture" that I grew up in.

I am a "60's brat," if you will. I saw the birth of the supposed "Women's Liberation Movement" and the "I don't need no stink'in Man!" attitude.

Secular versus Biblical. "If it feels good, do it!" versus Standards that were given by God to ALL people.

Relativism versus Authoritative.

What the "liberated woman" wanted the "liberated woman" got. And men LOVED some aspects of it, like "free love."

But it also "dummed down" respect, courtesy, concern FOR OTHERS, (to say little or nothing about sacrificial love for someone else) and now, as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright seems fond of saying..."the chickens have come home to rooooooost!"

This nation (the USA) is hard at work trying to banish God from everything. They have succeeded in Public Education to reduce "man" to mere accidents of nature with NO "purpose" in life. Public education fills the young "skulls full of mush" with humanistic propaganda and parades it as "the only truth." Academia is, imho, AFRAID of any 'alternative,' that God 'just might actually exist and BE the cause of everthing, creating mankind with a purpose HE designed'. "Accidents" don't have a purpose, they just happen. There are no "intrinsic" morals or ethics and "survival of the strongest" becomes the only "yardstick" by which to measure one's own standards. "Eat, or BE eaten" becomes the "animal world" rule for the "human animal."

As I mentioned to Larry earlier, his question seems to really be asking, "Is there an ultimate authority that establishes the rules independently of what any human being 'feels' or 'wants'?"

If the answer is "no," what difference does it make? We are then no more than walking "pieces of meat" to be taken, hoarded, protected, used, etc., according to ONLY what WE ourself want. There is no "intrinsic worth" beyond "facility," (what's in it for ME if I do 'so and so'?).

So the "issue" is moot without an external authority that establishes "universal truth" regardless of human opinion.

We really are back to the "bash 'em over the head with a club if you want them" neanderthal man and amazon woman sort of "evolution." It's "all about ME!"

What do you think, JL?

I think JL hit the nail on the head. Women know that playing the victim card will scare their target into silence/compliance most times. It is a tried and true effective manipulation tactic. Women can and do use it every day. I see women on this forum who use it, with GREAT SKILL. [I don't like what you say, therefore I don't "feel safe" :rolleyes:] There is great EMPOWERMENT in victimhood, with some people, and our sneakier sisters know this.

Larry, I believe that God has wired men to have an instinct to protect women and children. There was a study done on this about 10 years ago, and they showed that when there is a female in trouble, a man will drop what he is doing to come to her aide. The study demonstrated this is an instinctual trait wired into men. The point was to show that having men and women in combat side by side would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the front lines.

Oh boy, Mel! Or should I say, "Oh girl!"?

Talk about opening up a "can of worms!"

uh oh, did I do some BadSpeak TruthTalk!? :eek:

You know what "they" say, Mel, sometimes truth hurts.

Mel:

I will buy the hard wired bit. I have it in spades. And I have been taken advantage of through its mechanism and I knew it at the time, which makes me suspicious and wary of feminine whiles; "Am I being manipulated." Sometimes it is benign and at other times, not so. Thanks for pointing that out.

Females batting their eyes at some hapless male is part of conventional wisdom, and males know it yet respond in typical fashion FOR THE MOST PART. At other times males seem to have a hard wired response to become predator ON THE SPOT, which can land some female in a heap of trouble.

FH:

There is a third option: God gave us free will. He also gave us instinctive responses and further, a book to guide those who would read it. I don't want to get into a theological discussion, so this will be my one and only response in this vein. The world is as it is and I am attempting to understand a phenomenon that appears to be widespread amongst those who believe and those who don't.

Lake:

We are looking down the road to 13, 15, 16 and everything in between. Kids do all sorts of things, which is why they are called kids. And I do find it interesting that my wife now has boundaries that were not obviously present during the time she went nuts. Maybe we are actually discussing the need for protection for kids until they become grownups at whatever age that happens. With some, it might be never.

Hokay folks, so how does this fit into the equation of the affair world; that of adultery and lack of morals and ethics?

Harley says we are all hard wired for promiscuity. He says this is a weakness. I agree. So the theory is that women understand male reactions and this breeds what? From the responses I have seen, I have this glimmering that females needing protection is both true and not so true even leaving out the physical strength part of the equation.

Do women give off this unconscious (or aware) vulnerable signal set that causes some men or most men to enter the chase? Do men "Test" the waters just to see how warm it is? Is all of this some sort of cosmic joke?

Conventional male wisdom is that at the right place, right time, right guy, any woman will give it up. Unsaid but agreed is that men are the same way, except more so. Statistics would seem to yield a positive score for that one. Yet this is a danger to the nuclear family and the raising of kids and general well being and happiness so we have rules. Yet all too many people break those rules either because they don't believe in the rules or because it was the right time, right place, right guy sort of thing.

Without question, the 60's broke down our standards as FH so aptly describes. "And look at us now," as some famous person said. Men still have the instinct to protect women, who simultaneously act as if they need protection and use that instinct to do whatever their emotions drive them of the moment.

Men are trained to stifle their emotions, yet they DO have them as any man will tell you in private, but at the same time, they usually tend to understand mad, glad, sad and horny as the range. Women on the other hand, are raised to wallow around in their more complex emotional state(s) and use emotions to their advantage to counter male strength. Sampson and Delilah comes to mind.

[/quote]If the answer is "no," what difference does it make? We are then no more than walking "pieces of meat" to be taken, hoarded, protected, used, etc., according to ONLY what WE ourself want. There is no "intrinsic worth" beyond "facility," (what's in it for ME if I do 'so and so'?).[/quote]

Another current thread yields a women who committed adultery with her boss, who was treating her as a piece of meat, so she discovered. Did THAT women need to be protected by her husband? So the woman processed her affair in her own mind to yield what conclusion? Or is she confused?

One final thought before I turn this back to the opinions and thoughts of others is: I have told women over and over and over both here on this forum and in personal discussions that most men who are worthy of the name, if not all men who are not "immature Males," act in ways to PROTECT a woman's best interest whom they love. And yes, this means NOT screwing a married woman they fall in love with. So doing is against the best interest of said woman and EVERY male knows it.

The only possible exception to this is when a woman is being abused physically and a man takes her under his wing for protection - and things happen.

Yes, no, maybe? I started this thread because I was and still am, confused on the subject. Light is beginning to be shed and I am getting a bit less confused. But I ain't there yet.

Thank you one and all.

Larry

In my opinion, women don't need any more protection than men.

What they DO need is a father figure when they're growing up. Preferably one with morals and integrity who isn't borderline retarded.

The "damsel in distress" type of woman is a thing of the past in this country...they only act that way when it will work to their advantage to do so, not because they actually need the help.

JL,

Hmmmmm...lots to think about here, but there is one thing that particularly stands out to me. The crying issue.

You may have been able to train your children not to cry under duress but there is NO WAY that would work for me. I seldom cry in public. I do what I can to fight it. I leave if I have to, but I will not tell you it never happens. BUT.... I NEVER USE TEARS AS ANY KIND OF A MANIPULATIVE TOOL, Whether I am crying in private in a confrontation with my husband or crying accidentally in public.

Tears are not something I can turn off or on. I do get really tired of people( and I am not referring to ANYTHING you said) acting as though a woman's tears are blackmail. There may be some very skilled women who are able to cause tears at the appropriate time, but I don't know them.

I have often seen advice given here that if a woman is going to cry becuase of her WH that she should just go off and hide away until she can come back to him smiling. I find that insulting. In Plan A I can see doing that. But after D-Day, no way. I have cried VERY SINGLE DAY since D-DAY. Sometimes my H sees me, sometimes he does not. Those tears are both grieving and healing. I am not ashamed, I will not apologize for it and the truth is, if I have to put up with life-long knowledge that my H cheated on me, then he can LEARN to deal with my tears until I am able to stop. I believe he is man enough to handle the job.

As for men not knowing how to treat the "modern woman", let me assure you that women are just as confused. Many men seem to want to be protective....when they are in the mood....otherwise they want to be taken care of......and protected themselves. Women are not mind readers either.

JL, How many women have you ever actually heard say this:
"We get the full dose of "I am woman hear me roar." And then get "you need to protect me."
I have never heard it.

As an honest question, how do you feel about a woman staying home to raise her children instead of going out to work and putting her kids in daycare? Believe me, a woman who makes THAT choice does indeed need protection of all kinds. MOST men I know(and I do mean MOST) feel that a woman absolutely MUST earn some money, no matter how difficult it is to nurture and raise children(which IS a full-time job.

Your son's teacher should be disciplined for that disgusting discussion. I hope you talked to the principal or at least gave your son some pointers as to how to handle this when it comes up again. I mean really, how dare she!! How dare she imply that ANYONE is ANYTHING based on their gender. She would be fired if she had based that discussion on race. I was a teacher and hearing that absolutely makes my blood BOIL!!!!

Doesn't it just come down to a sense of entitlement on the part of both genders? All we really need is God's Word on the subject don't we? Men and women are both equal and different. Different is the operative word to me. We need to celebrate the differences instead of expecting men and women to behave exactly LIKE each other. I really fail to see why this such an issue. If we would all give up our sense of entitlement we would stop this feeling that HE SHOULD or SHE SHOULD. The issue is so complex that I think we could debate it all day and night and we would all end up in the same place.

Entitlement and expectations rule the world these days and not a clear understanding of treating each other as God ses us all. that's really the reason we have this board at all. We ALL know what comes from entitelement and expectations. Just look at the info in so many sig lines.

Blessings,
WH2LE

IMHO it has nothing to due with gender and everything to do with a person's personality.

I am not a woman's lib type woman and still like chivalry in men including being protected by my H.

However I have no problem "protecting" myself if I feel the need to be protected.

My H would protect ANY women in general. And he did use the "she chased me with her "damsel in distress' stuff and i could not resist helping her" story for his excuse for the A.

And the FOW uses her "damsel in distress" ploy for all facets of her life (this is according to seevral co-workers of my H's)

It sure is odd how people are so different.

I find the whole "damsel in distress" routine to be incredibly irritating.

That is, unless it's deliberate role-playing, but that's another topic...

My husband is my hero.
He protects me.
He comforts me.
When we go for our evening walks, he walks on the street side.
I am not a weak woman. (ya think? )
I am not a big strong man.
I need and want a man, my man.
I am a recovering feminist, I have 20 years sobriety.
The way I used to treat men reflected my attitude that men and women had "same" capabilities. It's simply not true.
I am a very strong woman who loves a man's care and concern.
Opening myself up to his care and concern has made me far happier than I ever anticipated!
My husband is not an accessory in my life - he is more than decorative.
My husband has knocked off most of my sharp corners.
So there!

On the other hand - I could and would live man-free if I were with a man I did not respect as a man , one who did not respect me as a woman. Having a man just to have a man - is using a man like an accessory. And, visa versa.

Pep

Pepperband,

As always, you are right on the money. Thank you for your clarity. I feel the same way as you.

I let my defensiveness get in my way on this subject.

The truth is, the ONLY man I am intersted in protecting ME is my H.

Wonderful post. That's why you are stll able to post after 20,000 posts and I have a mere 200.

Blessings,
WH2LE

AMEN TO THAT!

As always Pep, in a few words, you approach the heart of the matter. I have a few questions. . .


Nice, very, very nice. . .and needle sharp.

Larry

In keeping with my determination to relate this subject to affairs, I submit that part of a husband's long term problems dealing with their wife's infidelity is the concept that they should have been watching the pot to keep it from boiling.

Please note that at no time or place do I place blame on a betrayed spouse for a wayward's choices.

Just a thought to add to the pot.

Larry

Hi Wrknghrd,

I'll answer your last question first. More, much more than you can imagine. You are somewhat younger than me and I was a batchelor through the 60's and over half of the 70'. I ran into a significant number of women with shall we say confrontational attitudes.

I actually had a women tell me on a coast to coast flight in the 80's "that it wasn't fair. Men end up with more money than women after a divorce." For the life of me I don't know how this comment arrived in our conversation as were only sitting next to one another on yet another long a tedious flight.

I asked what she was talking about. She that an organization NOW had done a study and men ended up with more money when they divorced than they had when married. I just looked at her, and asked "Can you name one company that gives a man a bonus if he divorces? I cannot think of one." Given that child support, two domeciles, and possibly spousal support is the picture and best a split of assets, there is no way the man comes out better than he was while married, from a financial point of view.

My point, this woman actually believed this stuff. And worse acted accordingly.

I do know women that have and do use their emotions to control their H's. They will burst into tears at just about anything. They are real I am sure. For these women view the word NO as a synonym for some hateful epitaph. Further, they know that they will "win" in the long run because as Mel, Larry and others have pointed out, us guys tend to be hardwired to protect women and children. It is one of the reasons children crying bothers men so much, especially when they really are in no danger or pain.

You also said
I couldn't agree more. But, it is an issue to Larry because he is struggling to understand how his need to protect a woman he loves squares with her sense of being a "victim". Or to put it another way, are we males supposed to take on any and all males that approach OUR female when she is in rut? I suspect we as humans have risen a bit above this.

You also said Oh, you better believe I agree with you on this one. I used this to illustrate how "entitled" some women can feel in this day and age. Oh, and for the record "perhap Ms.**** was a little over the top, but after all women need to speak their minds." Said the Principal of the school. I live in CA where people can be so open minded their brains fall out.

I did talk to my son at length, but you know parents and especially Dad doesn't really carry much wait. We're too old and we are...after all Dad. I was in my mid-50's ya know.

As for the crying aspect of things I firmly believe it. I grew up in a military family, was in the military myself. I also played alot of sports as did my children. The oldest two (male and female) played college sports. It really is a bad thing to be crying when in conflict of any sort.

It is not a bad thing to cry. Many of the men I admire the most have shed a tear or two in private moments. I know I sure have.
But, men are indeed suspectible to a woman that cries. They feel drawn or they will flee because they fear they cannot handle what they feel. You sure don't have to apologize to me for feeling the need and in fact crying about the fact that your H cheated on you. My point is there is a time and place, and situation. But, it can be used as a weapon and it sure has been. You see it fairly frequently on this site, when an H catches his spouse cheating.

Finally, I am not sure it is a case of men not knowing how to treat a modern woman. It is more a case of we (men) don't know our role leadig to confusion on how to treat a woman. For example I am "old school", if a woman joins me for dinner...I am paying. But, that can create and has created conflict because it is "patronizing" for me to pay for their meal.

I have a female colleague and we alternate paying for the coffee when we meet to discuss our research. That works for me because it was agreed upon ahead of time.


I'm with you on that one.

God Bless,

JL

Hiya JL:


Given the rampant state of adultery and increase in the acknowledged participation of married females of late, maybe, just maybe we shouldn't have, er, "risen a bit above this," ya think? I say acknowledged because it seems to me that those of a leasure class have always had a problem with infidelity. As we have more of it in this country, percentages go up.

And for whatever it is worth, I am less struggling with my own involvement and wife as I am some of the other folk here who show glaring issues with this whole deal. A couple of recent posts along with a conversation with my wife over the necessity of forward protection for my daughter triggered me. I "DO" now have some thoughts as it relates to me and my wife, but that came as a process of discovery after the issue banged into my skull for other reasons.

NOW is famous for bogus presentations. Yet at the same time, lower and middle class women who get divorced often have a hard row to plow because of limited income generating capability through their lack of education and the real cost of raising kids as opposed to child support received - if received at all. I am pleased to report that child support payment is getting better than it used to be according to what I have read and seen.

Given those facts, this doesn't mean that husbands don't also suffer a downturn in standard of living as you so aptly point out. Divorce is bad news for everyone, even if need be because of whatever.

Larry

JL:

Let me add this:

As near as I can tell, my wife doesn't see herself as a "victim." Rather, she sees herself as gullible, naive, and lacking in morals that should have promoted boundaries. She also faults herself for judgement and ability to read men as they really are instead of who they pretend to be.

She has often said she is 100% responsible for what she did, nobody put a gun to her head. And she clearly doesn't like the fact she got infatuated with someone who wasn't real.

Larry