qman said:

How am I playing a victim here?

---

laughingdog said:

It certainly seems that you are the one who feels, or felt at some point in time victimized by women or a woman, as what you state about your wife, salaries, and respect also indicates.

---

laughingdog said:

By the way I am sure you are right about some women.

But probably social class and education make a difference as regards what counts as strength, when it comes to respect, in those cases where this matters.

Also there are women who had abusive (ie, really dangerous physical beating) relationships with men, get rescued , and then manage to find a similar abusive relationship:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=battered+woman+syndrome&ia=web

just as there are men who seek out a dominetrix.
many people are locked into compulsive patterns
that they think or feel are the (only) reality
if they even ever question their assumptions

So it seems, people are individuals, and overgeneralizing, can lead to many wrong conclusions.

---

laughingdog said:

"But doesn't the male behavior also benefit females in many cases?  Who also benefited when one group goes to war and takes resources from another group?  Yes, females.  Who died for that potential benefit?  Males."

This implies you think most wars are necessary. Seems a very strange position to take.

this you ignored

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=girls+and+math+ability&ia=web

and this you ignored

"the head of the family" would seem to only be a big issue, for some folks.
Mainly folks in what is called the 'nuclear family', in capitalist society,
who also harbor resentment.

The hippies with their communes, in the late '60s, often dispensed with
the nuclear family, finding the whole premise unnatural.
And seemed to enjoy relaxing gender roles and rules.

It would be interesting to know about both the Israeli Kibbutzim, tribal peoples, and hunter gatherers, in this regard.

The Eskimos are a special and interesting case as regards sexual customs."

- - - - - -

And you ignored

all the posts and information on biology.

- - - - -

You are cherry picking what to respond to, And want to paint those who suggest a more spacious view, as victims. It certainly seems that you are the one who feels, or felt at some point in time victimized by women or a woman, as what you state about your wife, salaries, and respect also indicates.

In the event you feel you have won an argument here, with nasty foes who are against you, it still won't solve, what are apparently, very personal issues, at root. In the event you choose to feel that way it most likely, will lock you, into feeling justified, resentful, & unhappy, for even longer.

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

qman said:

How am I playing a victim here?

---

It seems obvious to anyone but yourself:

laughingdog said:

It certainly seems that you are the one who feels, or felt at some point in time victimized by women or a woman, as what you state about your wife, salaries, and respect also indicates.

---

Just because there's been some ostentatious legal push to allow women equal rights, it doesn't mean that it is still equal from their perspective, as it's not. But you're not a woman so you wouldn't know that. It's just the same for people with darker skin; culture would have you believe they are no longer oppressed, but if you know someone well who's grown up with that part of the genetic lottery chosen for them, you will know that they are still oppressed. It may be far less than what it once was, but that doesn't mean it's gone away completely.

One only need read between the lines than be clobbered around the head with the obvious to see these things.

---

qman said:

The issue remains, some people continue to believe unless there's total equality, there's a victim and a perpetrator. That reasoning is fallacious in nature.

---

Shenmue said:

Whoever is making the most money should be the leader. If a woman just stays home and does nothing  why would she be a leader lol. Just look at the divorce rates! Are having both as leaders working out these day's? Nope..

---

qman said:

From what I have witnessed, if the wife makes more money than the husband, she will constantly tell the world that is the case, she will degrade her mate because of this fact and take total control of the spending. She will also not respect him in the slightest and the marriage usually will remain very weak. It's also not uncommon for the wife to degrade the husband in front of the children about the difference in incomes.

If the husband makes more money, more likely than not the wife will still control a large amount of the spending and would throw a fit if he ever mentioned the fact that he makes more money than she does.

---

hazyhorse said:

qman said:

From what I have witnessed, if the wife makes more money than the husband, she will constantly tell the world that is the case, she will degrade her mate because of this fact and take total control of the spending. She will also not respect him in the slightest and the marriage usually will remain very weak. It's also not uncommon for the wife to degrade the husband in front of the children about the difference in incomes.

If the husband makes more money, more likely than not the wife will still control a large amount of the spending and would throw a fit if he ever mentioned the fact that he makes more money than she does.

---

"from what i have witnessed" ever heard of confirmation bias??

seems like you're insecure in your masculinity my friend. i hope you have a chance to work on that some day.

---

That's why I stated "from what I have witnessed" instead of "when the wife...", that's called acknowledging my bias instead of making bold assertions. It's called being intellectually honest about how I formed my opinion on the subject matter.

"seems like you're insecure in your masculinity"

Please provide some specific examples instead of making an insulting generalization. 

"have a change to work on that some day"

I hope you have a chance to address the inclination of using passive aggressive behavior when you disagree with someone.

qman said:

If the husband makes more money, more likely than not the wife will still control a large amount of the spending and would throw a fit if he ever mentioned the fact that he makes more money than she does.

---

laughingdog said:

Generally the less money people have, the more important it is to them.
On a moment to moment basis.
Everyday they 'pinch pennies', shop at the dollar store, save coupons, etc.,
and often resent those who are better off.

(the most obvious exception is of course monks & nuns)

And the less work one puts into getting it, the less important it is perceived to be.
So a smart professor may, just enjoy the wealth in his life, without focusing on it particularly.

So again it seems qman's perceptions are influenced by his economic status,  and the economic status of those people he associates with.

Also of course, those stuck in poverty tend to lack education, and so their mental life is impoverished as well, so that interest in money becomes more dominant, in both their minds, and in the minds of those they relate to. Where as those with an education have much broader mental horizons, interests, possibilities and hopes. So that they may have more opportunity for happiness, and prefer enjoying others to "cutting them down to size".

---

XUL said:

Who should be the head of a family?

---

RJ Tubs 202 said:

qman said:

The issue remains, some people continue to believe unless there's total equality, there's a victim and a perpetrator. That reasoning is fallacious in nature.

---

I tend to take this perspective. This push for "total equality" has reached comical epidemic proportions.

BTW, some people still say, "Never hit a woman" but who says, "Never hit a man"? I want equality!

---

Tulipslave said:

mostly agree.  in regards to your last statement.  i'll never hit a woman unless she hits me first (or is physically assaulting or threatening me to the point i feel my personal safety is in danger.)  The moment a woman lays an aggressive hand on me, all "rules of social construct" fly out the window.  to not do so is asinine.

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

Tulipslave said:

mostly agree.  in regards to your last statement.  i'll never hit a woman unless she hits me first (or is physically assaulting or threatening me to the point i feel my personal safety is in danger.)  The moment a woman lays an aggressive hand on me, all "rules of social construct" fly out the window.  to not do so is asinine.

---

Mostly disagree. I've restrained women when they've hit me, but I've never retaliated with the full force at my disposal. To me that would be immoral. I'm far stronger than most women. Their full force vs mine is nothing alike. I could really hurt a woman with my fists, yet a woman would be lucky to give me a black eye.

I think there's a reason for the 'don't hit women' social construct - it's cause we are, by default, a lot bigger and stronger than they are!

Some exceptions to the rule of course.

---

i'm 6'3" and 143-160lbs depending on the time of year.  i'd say 50% or more of women could take me.  hell, i dated a woman who would toss me around in the bed when appropriate (she was 5'7", ~145lbs, and almost solid muscle)

so i'm gonna have to disagree with you, the same as you disagree with me.


in the vein of equality, for the sake of this thread, assault is assault is assault.  you hit me, it's fair and equal for me to hit you in defense, regardless of sex.