Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 11 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,775
Z
Member
Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,775
Originally Posted By: ouchthathurt
I think it is obvious, that in today's society, we have been taught that the goal of men is to better understand women. I think that this is a completely erroneous argument. I believe that this has set up a very flawed self image in men. Men should first seek to know themselves and what it means to be a man. I believe that this would better serve both sexes. Men have been taught in both the media (sit coms, news). That women are the smart ones. Just look at the example that men are given to model themselves after. Tim Allen, Homer Simpson, Jim Belushi. The list is endless. Men are portrayed as low brow idiots who can't do anything right without their wives. This is wrong and horribly demeaning to men and by proxy their wives.

You can read countless stories on here of men who are afraid to act like men. Who live in fear of their wives. As the bible says. Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave up his life for it. But women are to also recognize their husbands as the leader of their families. Many men have been told all their lives that they are just stupid, oversexed neanderthals. And the sad thing is, they are often more then satisfied to take on that role.

This is not an anti woman thread. It is a pro woman thread. Women have also been warped into thinking that they are to lead their families. To have it all, career, kids, and of course the submissive husband. Sorry, but the state of our marriages are in such poor shape that this must be addressed.

After this feminization of men, we are left with milque toast card board cut outs of men. No wonder why after being discovered in affairs women often look haughtily at there husbands and say, this is your fault. And the men are only to happy to believe it. Compounding there adulterous wife's sin by allowing them to use them as whipping boys. This has created an incredible lack of respect and consequently a love destroying environment that decreases the chance of reconciliation exponentially. A WOMAN WILL NOT LOVE A MAN SHE CANNOT RESPECT. THAT IS A FACT.

I have started this thread to address the weakness in men who jeopardize their marriages by not commanding the respect and self respect they deserve and their wives, so desperately need for their confidence and security.


Completely agree with this. Fastest way to destroy your relationship is to allow somone to disrespect you. If standing up for yourself means losing the marriage, you are still better off. Never take abuse and crap. Same for women, never abdicate your entitlement to respect.

Last edited by Zelmo; 04/21/09 11:57 PM.
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,284
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,284
CP,

I just cannot let this pass. Women had the vote in many states in this country from the time they became states. They did not have a national voting rights until much later. However, women did not die in the streets to obtain this right. It was granted by...men without use of force.

More interestingly, the voting patterns did not change after women were granted full voting rights. I wonder why? My speculation is that women got their say in BEFORE their men went to the polls.

To say that women did not have the right to vote until the suffrage movement is to ignore a fair amount of history.

To Ouch and others I will say NO ONE ALLOWS ANYONE TO INVENT. In fact, the truth of the matter is that most companies don't want people inventing because they are doing well without the competition of new ideas. Most of the inventors I know are almost single minded in their pursuit of inventions and uniformly have little use for "common knowledge" with regard to what can and cannot be done. The do not do it by committee and they don't spend a lot of time talking about it. They handle failure well.

Anyone noticing that these traits are more commonly found in men and not the standard operating procedure for women?

To get back on point, I will also say that rearing children is more of challenge today than in was even in my childhood. I think rearing boys is even more so given the distinct change in school behavior these days. And I mean the behavior of the administrators and teachers.

Someone mentioned the issue of boys crying. I've seen men cry all of my life, but it is done in private. I learned at a very early age that crying was a very bad thing to do. My father taught me a very simple lesson, you cannot fight, you cannot react, you cannot assess your oponent if...YOUR ARE BLIND. Crying blinds you and thus makes you defenseless, even in a verbal arguement.

Ouch also mentioned that women are better at multitasking, which is after all what school really requires these days. But, men focus and can focus to the exclusion of all other distractions. As I have gotten older it is one of the things I miss most is the ability to focus for hours and not even be aware of my surroundings as a address a difficult or complex problem. It is a talent I see more in men than women.

I could go on, but I do think Pep's starting of this thread to be very interesting.

JL

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29
Q
Member
Offline
Member
Q
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29
Interesting discussion. One of the things I admired so much about the MB program is that it focuses on how spouses should be to one another and their family, rather than the husband as head of household structure/concept as Biblical teachings tell us. I'm a little surprised to read so many opinions advocating that boys should be groomed into men to "lead" the household. Instead of one spouse trying to lead the other spouse, why can't it be a collective effort? Why the necessity to have one spouse as the strong one and the other as the submissive one? Why is respect associated with one ruling the other? If both spouses are responsible for the safety and security of their partner, why is 50/50 such an impossible concept?

Perhaps I need some clarification on what is meant by "leading" . . .

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
Well this one is tough because while i can see Mel's argument that no one (men or anyone else) can stop me personally from doing whatever, i also agree with BR, CP, and verve in that "society" held women down in history even though they allowed it to happen. "Society" still holds a lot of people down in today's world because they worry far to much about what others will think about them.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted By: Just Learning
CP,

I just cannot let this pass. Women had the vote in many states in this country from the time they became states. They did not have a national voting rights until much later. However, women did not die in the streets to obtain this right. It was granted by...men without use of force.

More interestingly, the voting patterns did not change after women were granted full voting rights. I wonder why? My speculation is that women got their say in BEFORE their men went to the polls.

To say that women did not have the right to vote until the suffrage movement is to ignore a fair amount of history.


Why did it have to be “granted” by anyone whether with or without the use of force?

Originally Posted By: Just Learning
To Ouch and others I will say NO ONE ALLOWS ANYONE TO INVENT. In fact, the truth of the matter is that most companies don't want people inventing because they are doing well without the competition of new ideas. Most of the inventors I know are almost single minded in their pursuit of inventions and uniformly have little use for "common knowledge" with regard to what can and cannot be done. The do not do it by committee and they don't spend a lot of time talking about it. They handle failure well.

Anyone noticing that these traits are more commonly found in men and not the standard operating procedure for women?


I am a woman and I can not stand that business in general runs by committee and it takes 153 meetings to make a decisions about something and most of the projects are led by men. I do not cry if my ideas or suggestions are not used although I will admit to fighting damn hard to get them in there to begin with.

Originally Posted By: Just Learning
To get back on point, I will also say that rearing children is more of challenge today than in was even in my childhood. I think rearing boys is even more so given the distinct change in school behavior these days. And I mean the behavior of the administrators and teachers.

Someone mentioned the issue of boys crying. I've seen men cry all of my life, but it is done in private. I learned at a very early age that crying was a very bad thing to do. My father taught me a very simple lesson, you cannot fight, you cannot react, you cannot assess your oponent if...YOUR ARE BLIND. Crying blinds you and thus makes you defenseless, even in a verbal arguement.


I do not agree with that philosophy, my H is a very emotional guy I have seen him cry many times over something emotional and we have tried to teach are son a balance. He knows it is okay to cry, he knows it is okay to protect himself and fight back if necessary, however do not be the aggressor by starting a fight, he knows that it is okay to express his opinion on anything. Actually that is the same with all three of my children.

Originally Posted By: Just Learning
Ouch also mentioned that women are better at multitasking, which is after all what school really requires these days. But, men focus and can focus to the exclusion of all other distractions. As I have gotten older it is one of the things I miss most is the ability to focus for hours and not even be aware of my surroundings as a address a difficult or complex problem. It is a talent I see more in men than women.



I know this all too well and usually nothing can penetrate that focus either which to me is not a “talent” it is detrimental in our M IMHO as I feel like I never truly have my H’s “undivided attention” because he is really focusing on something else and not really listening to what I am asking or saying to him. And it comes pretty natural to him; he seems to be this way most of the time.

Originally Posted By: Just Learning
I could go on, but I do think Pep's starting of this thread to be very interesting.

JL



Actually ouch started the thread.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
B/R:

You wanted me to get back to you, but I'm on my way to play golf.

But your post:


Originally Posted By: black_raven
Originally Posted By: ouchthathurt
All right. You want proof. Go and measure the indent in the cushions of the couch in front of the television and see who's a$$ fits it.


Huh? I know my H's butt prints are indented in the couch more than mine but I don't think he's lazy. He works hard during the week and wants to relax in his free time. I want the same too.

sigh I don't know how we ended up here. crazy stickout rotflmao



That's my point. Go back and read Pep's original entire thread. And it didn't devolve into butt indentations, or voting rights, or whatever..... IT stayed on discussion point. FM and Bob even seemed to have had tremendous insight into thier own sitchs from that.

More later.

LG

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
JL, a generalization, by necessity. But on a national scale, certain rights have been legally forbidden to women until a movement gained that right for them.

Quote:
More interestingly, the voting patterns did not change after women were granted full voting rights. I wonder why? My speculation is that women got their say in BEFORE their men went to the polls.
As I said, if anyone has read The Doll House, they will see this in action. A fascinating play. The woman seems like a ditz and without rights or power, and you want to pat her on her head and say there there. But as you go on, you realize just who she really is. Because that's how women achieved things 100 years ago - behind the scenes.

So, LG, to get back on point. My SIL raised a wuss. If she couldn't find a parking spot right up against the building, she wouldn't shop - so her precious son didn't have to risk walking across a dangerous parking lot! When he and his dad found a toy gun buried in their back yard, they kept it a secret so he could keep it, cos she would have taken it away. She wouldn't let him play sports. In middle school, when he failed gym, she went to the principal and complained and threatened to sue, so he got a B. She wouldn't let him go out of town for college, so he chose the local university - but (his one and only big confrontation with her) he lived in the dorms. In his own city! Just to get away from her. Today, it's uncomfortable to be around him, he is so unmanly. He won't look you in the eyes when he talks to you. He talks down to the ground. He's white as chalk. He's just...weird.

Last edited by catperson; 04/22/09 08:17 AM.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 843
O
Member
OP Offline
Member
O
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 843
Let me give you an example of why a marriage should be led by the husband. When I was in the navy. We had a Captain ON our ship and a commander IN CHARGE of the ship. If you compare a marriage to their relationship you will see a perfect example of a functioning marriage. The captain is like a husband. His focus is THE MISSION. The commander of the ship (or executive officer) is like a wife. His responsibility is RUNNING THE SHIP.
The captain is outward focused and the commander is in ward focus. Though the captain is in charge of the ship, He is not the one who manages it. The XO does. The Captain is the representative to the outside world. The XO focuses on inward things, with the ship representative of the home. On the ship I was on, the majority of the crew was under the age of 22. and the majority of them were teenagers. The captain and the XO were basically father and mother to the young men aboard. Though authoritarian and did not love them. But imagine how it would be caring for say 75 teenage boys. There was a chain of command yes. And the XO usually handled disicipline. But sometimes the offense was serious enough to warrant a "captains mast" Or a trial in front of the captain (historically done at the main mast on sailing ships). To bring the point home. A captain will commonly ask the XO what he needs to run the ship efficiently. He listens to his XO. And will help in anyway possible. This is how the family has been run up until today. Men focused outward through their jobs and women focused inward on their homes and families. Both jobs are critical. Neither job is more important then the other. and neither would survive without the other.

Last edited by ouchthathurt; 04/22/09 08:32 AM.
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,931
V
Member
Offline
Member
V
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,931
Originally Posted By: Just Learning
To get back on point, I will also say that rearing children is more of challenge today than in was even in my childhood. I think rearing boys is even more so given the distinct change in school behavior these days. And I mean the behavior of the administrators and teachers.

While we can guide the natural aggressive and competitive instinct of boys in our home, the school system, IMO, wants nothing more than boys to behave like girls. Girls can be easier to teach, take less time, and less headaches.
I have had countless challenges over the years with school principals and teachers.

One of many examples ... one of my boys took his ball glove and a softball to school to practice up his pitching with a another friend. Yes, the other boy had a cage. They wanted to do this at the back of a very large and isolated part of the school ground. Nope, forget it, no way ... ball too hard, not allowed on school property. Principal suggested a nerf ball (yeah right!) or why not use the benches in the yard to sit and talk, or read a book.

This was crazy for obvious reasons to anyone who has active boys.

This attitude does nothing but try to curb the instincts of future men.

That's my rant for the day.


M'd 22 years
BW-me
D-Day 08/08 LTA


Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted By: catperson
JL, a generalization, by necessity. But on a national scale, certain rights have been legally forbidden to women until a movement gained that right for them.

Quote:
More interestingly, the voting patterns did not change after women were granted full voting rights. I wonder why? My speculation is that women got their say in BEFORE their men went to the polls.
As I said, if anyone has read The Doll House, they will see this in action. A fascinating play. The woman seems like a ditz and without rights or power, and you want to pat her on her head and say there there. But as you go on, you realize just who she really is. Because that's how women achieved things 100 years ago - behind the scenes.

So, LG, to get back on point. My SIL raised a wuss. If she couldn't find a parking spot right up against the building, she wouldn't shop - so her precious son didn't have to risk walking across a dangerous parking lot! When he and his dad found a toy gun buried in their back yard, they kept it a secret so he could keep it, cos she would have taken it away. She wouldn't let him play sports. In middle school, when he failed gym, she went to the principal and complained and threatened to sue, so he got a B. She wouldn't let him go out of town for college, so he chose the local university - but (his one and only big confrontation with her) he lived in the dorms. In his own city! Just to get away from her. Today, it's uncomfortable to be around him, he is so unmanly. He won't look you in the eyes when he talks to you. He talks down to the ground. He's white as chalk. He's just...weird.


I think your SIL is a domineering person and it has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman.

However like i stated earlier i do not personally know any woman that is that way and if i did i would likely not speak to her.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted By: Vittoria
Originally Posted By: Just Learning
To get back on point, I will also say that rearing children is more of challenge today than in was even in my childhood. I think rearing boys is even more so given the distinct change in school behavior these days. And I mean the behavior of the administrators and teachers.

While we can guide the natural aggressive and competitive instinct of boys in our home, the school system, IMO, wants nothing more than boys to behave like girls. Girls can be easier to teach, take less time, and less headaches.
I have had countless challenges over the years with school principals and teachers.

One of many examples ... one of my boys took his ball glove and a softball to school to practice up his pitching with a another friend. Yes, the other boy had a cage. They wanted to do this at the back of a very large and isolated part of the school ground. Nope, forget it, no way ... ball too hard, not allowed on school property. Principal suggested a nerf ball (yeah right!) or why not use the benches in the yard to sit and talk, or read a book.

This was crazy for obvious reasons to anyone who has active boys.

This attitude does nothing but try to curb the instincts of future men.

That's my rant for the day.




I must be living under a rock as i have not seen this where i live all kids are actually encouraged to be active.

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
Huh? I wasn't talking about her. I was talking about the son's femininization. I can't even imagine him heading a household, should he ever get married. Actually, he will turn out just like his dad, who never stood up to his wife about anything. His mom was just like my SIL.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted By: ouchthathurt
Let me give you an example of why a marriage should be led by the husband. When I was in the navy. We had a Captain ON our ship and a commander IN CHARGE of the ship. If you compare a marriage to their relationship you will see a perfect example of a functioning marriage. The captain is like a husband. His focus is THE MISSION. The commander of the ship (or executive officer) is like a wife. His responsibility is RUNNING THE SHIP.
The captain is outward focused and the commander is in ward focus. Though the captain is in charge of the ship, He is not the one who manages it. The XO does. The Captain is the representative to the outside world. The XO focuses on inward things, with the ship representative of the home. On the ship I was on, the majority of the crew was under the age of 22. and the majority of them were teenagers. The captain and the XO were basically father and mother to the young men aboard. Though authoritarian and did not love them. But imagine how it would be caring for say 75 teenage boys. There was a chain of command yes. And the XO usually handled disicipline. But sometimes the offense was serious enough to warrant a "captains mast" Or a trial in front of the captain (historically done at the main mast on sailing ships). To bring the point home. A captain will commonly ask the XO what he needs to run the ship efficiently. He listens to his XO. And will help in anyway possible. This is how the family has been run up until today. Men focused outward through their jobs and women focused inward on their homes and families. Both jobs are critical. Neither job is more important then the other. and neither would survive without the other.


This is not possible any more because is difficult to live without two incomes, therefore you must both take responsibility, sometimes the W has to the Captain and the H be the XO and visa versa.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted By: catperson
Huh? I wasn't talking about her. I was talking about the son's femininization. I can't even imagine him heading a household, should he ever get married. Actually, he will turn out just like his dad, who never stood up to his wife about anything. His mom was just like my SIL.


I figured you were not talking about her my point was that she is a domineering person not because she is a female. And if her H let her "push him and the son" around and turn them into wusses it is not just as much their fault?

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,490
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
This is not possible any more because is difficult to live without two incomes, therefore you must both take responsibility, sometimes the W has to the Captain and the H be the XO and visa versa.

This is complete nonsense, it is only "difficult" to live without two incomes if you CHOOSE for it to be...there is a HUGE difference between "wants" and "needs".

We live on one income and have the whole time we have been married. My H makes the money and it is up to ME to budget it correctly and run the household. I have learned to stretch a dollar and make it work because this is what we have chosen.

Are there things we "want"? Sure...but our "needs" are met, partly due to our diligence in spending our money wisely.

It irritates me no end when I hear people say this. We are PROOF that you don't HAVE to have "two incomes". It's hard sometimes but FAR from impossible.


Me,BW - 42; FWH-46
4 kids
D-Day #s1 and 2~May 2006
D-Day #3~Feb.27, 2007 (we'd been in a FR)
Plan B~ March 3 ~ April 6, 2007

In Recovery and things are improving every day. MB rocks. smile
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,931
V
Member
Offline
Member
V
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,931
Originally Posted By: Still_Crazy
I must be living under a rock as i have not seen this where i live all kids are actually encouraged to be active.

So you see why these instances were challenging, in more ways than one. But the main point was for the boys to behave in a less threatening manner. No risk of being hurt, less confrontation etc.


M'd 22 years
BW-me
D-Day 08/08 LTA


Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
Quote:

I must be living under a rock as i have not seen this where i live all kids are actually encouraged to be active.
There was a great story on this on NPR a couple weeks ago. (it's an airing, not a written story)

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
Originally Posted By: Still_Crazy
Originally Posted By: catperson
Huh? I wasn't talking about her. I was talking about the son's femininization. I can't even imagine him heading a household, should he ever get married. Actually, he will turn out just like his dad, who never stood up to his wife about anything. His mom was just like my SIL.


I figured you were not talking about her my point was that she is a domineering person not because she is a female. And if her H let her "push him and the son" around and turn them into wusses it is not just as much their fault?
I wasn't even talking about whose fault it was. I was talking about the outcome. That I think boys are supposed to be allowed to be boys, so to speak. In his case, it wasn't allowed, and he turned out an atypical (in our society anyway) male.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 843
O
Member
OP Offline
Member
O
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 843
Oh I agree with you. It is not possible in a lot of families. The sad thing is, in to many families, the children are the ones who pay the price. And what they have learned is dysfunctional. This will become evident. As they grow up and DON'T start families. Because the priority was put on money and not them.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: lousygolfer




That's my point. Go back and read Pep's original entire thread. And it didn't devolve into butt indentations, or voting rights, or whatever..... IT stayed on discussion point.


I hope you are not implying there was EVER a time on this forum when discussions did not devolve, grow, ebb and flow, get threadjacked. Let me disabuse you of that notion because that is the RULE rather than the exception on this forum and on any forum I have ever posted in the last 15 years.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Page 6 of 11 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
2 members (2 invisible), 26 guests, and 60 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mwid, Shepherd, alg, Pelican89, SRL
71,672 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,526
Posts2,322,549
Members71,673
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5