# Should the man be the head of the family?



## KristinaKiara (Jan 17, 2014)

I think anyone who is appropriate should "lead" the family, since some persons simply feel better following, and some are simply better in making important decisions than others. But no, I don't think that should be man. Woman could do that job just as good, some even better.


----------



## Uralian Hamster (May 13, 2011)

Men will claim to be the head of the family when at work or around friends but they know very well who runs the show. Its just macho bs.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

Some families are extended families with multiple adults and children (multiple generations under one roof). Some families are same-sex partnerships, with and without children. Some families consist of a single parent raising children. Some families consist only of a couple, without children. Some families do not fit any of the aforementioned descriptions.

I don't know that there is a "should" that can apply to every family, given the wide range of situations people may live in.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Does this "family unit" bullshit even matter anymore? Your life doesn't even have to include monogamy if you don't want it to, anymore. You can live whatever the fuck lifestyle you want.


----------



## lilimarleen (Oct 17, 2013)

Not as a rule, because there are too many men out there who aren't suited to leading the family and providing for them. Having that as a rule without fully understanding the responsibilities and the gravity of the situation does not bode well.

But if a man is capable of it, and his family is happy with that sort of structure and it's not oppressive, I think it's nice.  At least, it's nice to imagine something so emotionally close, traditional, and _functional_.


----------



## Zster (Mar 7, 2011)

Hate the word. "Should", here... Each family should decide for itself, based on what seems to work. I prefer equal partnerships, but that's me.


----------



## Wunderlust (Jan 30, 2014)

The idea of anyone be the boss of me is annoying. I'm all about equality, not different levels of classes.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Side note: As soon as we start discussing whether the "man or woman should be in charge," we immediately jettison same-sex marriages.

Anyway, I see it as a false question. Each couple is different, since each spouse has different strengths. They should decide how best their union works and go from there, based on individual capability and preferences, and work it out for themselves.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I had originally asked what year is this but then I saw that 14 people actually agreed with the poll . . . 

so NM.


----------



## Faygo (May 28, 2012)

Sometimes people like an equal partnership while others like someone to have a stronger leadership role in the relationship and the family. I disagree with the above because the head of the family depends on the dynamics of the relationship. The woman could be the head of the family or the man could be the head of the family. Of course this poll cuts out same sex relationships, but even then it can be an equal partnership or one where one partner takes a leadership role. As long as its a happy environment and the other partner is fine with being led.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I don't think it's a matter of "should" as much as "what works?". that said, I tend to see relationships as more egalitarian anyway.
> one exception: based on my observations, I think that, most of the time, men are better at handling finances than women.
> PS: before you respond with "I'm offended! I'm a woman and I'm great with finances!", that's great, but it's irrelevant (because the key word is _most_ and not _all_)


I assume that you have statistics to back this up?


----------



## Polemic (May 22, 2013)

I think this is a generally stupid and irrelevant thing to think about in this day and age. What is this "should" horseshit?


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

What works for me may not work for others. Never should someone make their significant other feel inferior. But I said to my boyfriend I will think of him as someone who is the provider because he wants to be seen that way and wants to protect me and we are both happy like that. As long as there is mutual respect, that is the most important thing.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

The idea of equality in relationships is nice, but impossible. This isn't to say that equality between genders overall is impossible, but in a case-by-case basis one partner is always dominant over the other in some way. This is simply how social relationships work. My personal belief is that the woman is more often the dominant partner in the relationship; regardless of whether this is true or just my perception, it remains pretty clear that someone will be dominant, whether the man or the woman. 

And dominant doesn't mean 'I'm the boss of you!'; it means that the one who is trying to please the other is most often not the dominant partner. If you are trying to please someone, then you are conceding that they have some power (of whatever kind, even if you are voluntarily granting them this power) over you, and you must appease them by altering your behavior. I see women as more often the dominant partner because of this definition of mine.


----------



## Polemic (May 22, 2013)

Kollenhausen said:


> And dominant doesn't mean 'I'm the boss of you!'; it means that the one who is trying to please the other is most often not the dominant partner. If you are trying to please someone, then you are conceding that they have some power (of whatever kind, even if you are voluntarily granting them this power) over you, and you must appease them by altering your behavior. I see women as more often the dominant partner because of this definition of mine.


Or...... Wild idea... But bear with me on this one..... Maybe you try to please your partner because you enjoy seeing them happy and you love them? I know.... It's kinda crazy I'm sure it couldn't possibly...... Be anything so simple... 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Polemic said:


> Or...... Wild idea... But bear with me on this one..... Maybe you try to please your partner because you enjoy seeing them happy and you love them? I know.... It's kinda crazy I'm sure it couldn't possibly...... Be anything so simple...
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk


Oh, to be sure you love them. It's just that the shape the love takes is directed by whether you are the dominant partner or not. People associate ideas of dominance with negative stuff; it isn't like that nine times out of ten. The dominant partner (and sometimes this can switch with context) is pleased that the other is trying to please them because it shows love and commitment, and so on. The non-dominant partner is pleased that the dominant partner was pleased because their 'message' of commitment was understood and accepted, and that makes them happy. It's a win-win, not a win-lose.


----------



## Polemic (May 22, 2013)

Kollenhausen said:


> Oh, to be sure you love them. It's just that the shape the love takes is directed by whether you are the dominant partner or not. People associate ideas of dominance with negative stuff; it isn't like that nine times out of ten. The dominant partner (and sometimes this can switch with context) is pleased that the other is trying to please them because it shows love and commitment, and so on. The non-dominant partner is pleased that the dominant partner was pleased because their 'message' of commitment was understood and accepted, and that makes them happy. It's a win-win, not a win-lose.



Look I'm certainly not discounting the fact that this happens and even that it works for both people and can be very loving and functional. What I'm saying is that the way you frame your argument leaves no room for alternative dynamics. You are presenting it in a very absolute fashion, and I disagree with it. It doesn't NEED to have anything to do with dominance, or power dynamics, that's the distinction. I'm not ignorant to the reality of many relationships, but the trend I see on this forum is for many people to make very all or nothing statements, especially when it comes to this topic. There was a long thread on the entp sub similar to this, about women being attracting to assholes and the same power dynamic thing kept popping up in there. My entire point is essentially that yes, dominance does exist in many relationships whether for good or ill, but that there can also be relationships of NO DOMINANCE, but equality.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Polemic said:


> Look I'm certainly not discounting the fact that this happens and even that it works for both people and can be very loving and functional. What I'm saying is that the way you frame your argument leaves no room for alternative dynamics. You are presenting it in a very absolute fashion, and I disagree with it. It doesn't NEED to have anything to do with dominance, or power dynamics, that's the distinction. I'm not ignorant to the reality of many relationships, but the trend I see on this forum is for many people to make very all or nothing statements, especially when it comes to this topic. There was a long thread on the entp sub similar to this, about women being attracting to assholes and the same power dynamic thing kept popping up in there. My entire point is essentially that yes, dominance does exist in many relationships whether for good or ill, but that there can also be relationships of NO DOMINANCE, but equality.


Okay, but I don't even understand how an interaction would go where the two were in equality. Strangers are kind of equal while they feel each other out, but after a while they figure out the 'rules'. I even understand that one partner can be dominant in one area, and the other dominant in another. But how do you envision an interaction where the partners are simultaneously equal?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

This question assumes that all families have an heterosexual, cisgender couple included. To put it quite simply, whilst a couple can choose to have one adult be the "head" if that is the desire of both/all concerned adults, then fine, but it should not be automatic and certainly should not be enforced on anyone who does not consent to such a traditional hierarchy.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Looks like 22.22% of people who answered this poll are time travelers from the past.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

My stepmother dominates over my father because he is laid back but she has no influence over the children in that scenario and my stepfather seems to be very classical saying do this shit and don't question me. I can't really tell which system is worse to be honest.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

TreasureTower said:


> I assume that you have statistics to back this up?


then you assume incorrectly and overlooked the "based on my observations" part. it is not necessary to provide facts when stating an opinion based on observation as long as you clarify that it is just that, an opinion, rather than a fact. honestly, I don't care enough to really research it.


----------



## sraddatz (Nov 7, 2009)

I'm a husband and father. I do think of myself as the head of the house. I would feel like I was letting my family down if I wasn't. It's my job to lead. That doesn't mean subjugating everyone else; we're all in this together. My kids count on me to make tough decisions and changes.


----------



## idkwatimdoing (Dec 15, 2013)

I think we should make the women be head of the family for a change.


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

No. And for personal reasons (of the more exciting feature)... no


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

Men and women is equals is what I'm implying and family for me means me and my signifigant other without kids only.


----------



## Obscure (May 20, 2013)

Wh1zkey said:


> Would you rather see a man be the head of the family or not?


Should a woman be the neck of the family?


----------



## sraddatz (Nov 7, 2009)

Vampire said:


> Should a woman be the neck of the family?


 She turns the head any way she wants it to look.


----------



## Eagle9615 (Nov 16, 2013)

Who ever is more comfortable making major decisions should be the head of the household. For example I consider my mother as the head of the household because my father would rather ignore a problem than make a major life decision.


----------



## sraddatz (Nov 7, 2009)

Eagle9615 said:


> Who ever is more comfortable making major decisions should be the head of the household. For example I consider my mother as the head of the household because my father would rather ignore a problem than make a major life decision.


That's the dynamic with my wife and me. She is very indecisive. I tend to gather information for a while, then make my decision. Once my mind is made up, it's very hard for me to see it any other way.


----------



## EternalNocturne (Nov 4, 2011)

DiscoveringSelf said:


> I am not talking about power inside the family. I meant power to subdue a stranger who tries to harm ones family. A male would easily do it, then compared to females.
> For Eg- If there is a prank call, and the guy on the phone is using abusing language. Dad would be a better person to handle the situation then mom.












I'd be more scared of her. Hahahahaha ohhhh Izumi. 










Hahahaha sorry, her character makes me laugh.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> then you assume incorrectly and overlooked the "based on my observations" part. it is not necessary to provide facts when stating an opinion based on observation as long as you clarify that it is just that, an opinion, rather than a fact. honestly, I don't care enough to really research it.


Yes but you basically implied that anyone who disagreed with your viewpoint's view was irrelevant. It's perfectly acceptable to make a statement which you believe to be accurate, "based on [your] observations". My reason for requesting that you find evidence to back up your observation, was based on your discounting - in advance - anyone who disagrees with you. My point is that since you're the one who is making this claim; the onus is on YOU; not your opponents to verify it. Your "observation" which is fine btw - what is not, is discrediting anyone who disagrees with this view and quashing any attempts for them to do so; based on the "I'm making a general statement" arguement.

Hasty generalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables....]
> 
> [...Examples[edit]
> 
> ...





Swordsman of Mana said:


> I don't think it's a matter of "should" as much as "what works?". that said, I tend to see relationships as more egalitarian anyway.
> one exception: based on my observations, I think that,* most of the time*, men are better at handling finances than women.
> *PS: before you respond with "I'm offended! I'm a woman and I'm great with finances!", that's great, but it's irrelevant (because the key word is most and not all*)


IOW, just because based on YOUR observations; it doesn't necessarily follow that what you say is necessarily true and what anyone who posits a contrary view is in any way "irrelevant". The KEY words are "based on [YOUR] observations; which makes anyone who disagrees with your observations, just as valid as your opinion. There is no logical basis for you to decree their opinions to be irrelevant based on your opinion of "most and not all" - which is still YOUR opinion and is no more or less valid then everyone else',s without evidence to back it up. I don't care if you "really research it" or not but unless you do; you have no right to tell anyone else that their opinions are "irrelevant"; since what they claim would also be just another OPIONION - just like yours.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@TreasureTower

please reread
I didn't say anyone who disagreed was wrong, I said that it is not necessary to support a point with evidence if you are simply stating an observation.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @TreasureTower
> 
> please reread
> I didn't say anyone who disagreed was wrong, I said that it is not necessary to support a point with evidence if you are simply stating an observation.





Swordsman of Mana said:


> PS: before you respond with "I'm offended! I'm a woman and I'm great with finances!", *that's great, but it's irrelevant (because the key word is most and not all*)


Feel free to roll your eyes at me until the cows come home; you have done nothing whatsoever to invalidate my point and until/unless you do; my point remains unchallenged.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

DiscoveringSelf said:


> Dear everyone, People are afraid of your dad, not mom. Why is that so?


I was actually more scared of my dad when it came to verbal abuse but my mum was far more lethal when it came to beating because we're both female, she didn't tend to see anything wrong with beating me to a pulp, while my dad would just smack me once and that was enough, because he knew he could seriously hurt me.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

On the topic at hand, i find it a bit cute if a man wants to be the head of the family, so he can be the bad guy and do all the gritty work while i sit back and get my nails done. :tongue:


----------



## CaptSwan (Mar 31, 2013)

Like it's been said before... both members of the couple should be heads; discussing affairs taking into account the best interest of the household.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

TreasureTower said:


> Feel free to roll your eyes at me until the cows come home; you have done nothing whatsoever to invalidate my point and until/unless you do; my point remains unchallenged.


you still don't get it. I don't care about challenging your point.


----------



## sraddatz (Nov 7, 2009)

googoodoll said:


> On the topic at hand, i find it a bit cute if a man wants to be the head of the family, so he can be the bad guy and do all the gritty work while i sit back and get my nails done. :tongue:


That's me. I'm the big bad dad sometimes. 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

this is such an odd question to me. i am not married/don't have kids, but i feel that me and my boyfriend don't really lead each other at all. it doesn't feel like either of us has the upper hand. in fact, we are both Ps and i was telling my INTJ mom that neither of us is the "take charge" type, so we procrastinate a lot. eventually one of us will uncomfortably move into that spot, but it's in different areas, so it's like we're pretty equal.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

The question isn't should he be, he already is.

The real question is, "is he going to be a good, kind, benevolent, protective, productive, self-sacrificing leader or is he going to be a tyrant.

His own happiness lies in the balance so he should consider wisely. An unhappy wife makes for a man who dreads coming home. So go ahead and make the decision and be in charge but you've got to bear the brunt then of your decisions which you made without consulting your wife.

Remember Pilot.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

> The U.S. government formerly used the terms "head of the household" and "head of the family" to describe householders; beginning in 1980, these terms were officially dropped from the census and replaced with "householder".


Whoever wishes to be the householder should be it, under tax law. As for who should bear the primary responsibility for decision making... Decisions should be made between the adult members of the family unit based on what benefits the entire family best. How is that hard to understand?

Hey guys, I hear women can also own property now. Vote even.


----------



## NChSh (Jan 2, 2013)

I loathe hierarchy, and the idea of traditional gender roles (if gender is a consideration at all, it should be based on actual, rather than perceived, differences). Small groups (like a family) do not require a leader, or boss. Unless the other adult is somehow mentally incompetent, there should be no "head."


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

What people _should_ do is stop dictating their opinions on what is or is not the right family structure. It all depends on the individuals involved. 

Despite popular belief, there is no cookie-cutter family. Just the general idea of one. It stems much deeper than what meets the eye. We all have our own unique views, experiences, and interpretations on the matter, and that just can't be completely defined or acknowledged in a simple "who wears the pants" sort of question like this.

So I say as long as there is mutual respect, do what you want. Do what you think is best. Let it be.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you still don't get it. *I don't care about challenging your point*.


That's blatantly obvious, lol but the fact is that your observation is not valid. It is based on only a small sample - not the majority as you stated in your initial quote; therefore; it is fallacious for you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with what you said based on tem being good with money is "irrelevant" is just pure nonsense, plain and simple.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

TreasureTower said:


> That's blatantly obvious, lol but the fact is that your observation is not valid. It is based on only a small sample - not the majority as you stated in your initial quote; therefore; it is fallacious for you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with what you said based on tem being good with money is "irrelevant" is just pure nonsense, plain and simple.


let me clarify, someone disagreeing with me is irrelevant _by itself_. a single piece data. that would be like me saying "people have two eyes" and someone protesting "but I know someone with 3 eyes, so you're wrong!" (okay, this is a bit more extreme and a statement of fact rather than observation, but you get my point). 

*sigh* my attempts to avoid an argument over something stupid have landed me in an even stupider one. I will kindly ask that we end this pointless discussion I'm a top. having my ass ridden is not my idea of a good time


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm a top. having my ass ridden is not my idea of a good time


Only you would find a way to bring sex into this. :laughing:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

TreasureTower said:


> Only you would find a way to bring sex into this. :laughing:


always do :wink:


----------



## Curiously (Nov 7, 2011)

No, this isn't a right held by someone based on sex.
It doesn't hurt that my parents raised our family based on a relatively even distribution of duties and responsibilities. They would discuss all financial matters, reach a compromise or an agreement, and proceed as a duo/team, so I grew up viewing marriage or partnership as two equals making it work through a united front.


----------



## eilonwe (Mar 10, 2014)

This question is too complicated to be answered with just yes and no.
The person most suitable to be head of the family isn't necessarily a male or female. It depends on a person's character. Then there are families who don't have a head, because they don't need one. Everyone is equal.

I guess my answer is: A man should be the head of the family as much as a woman should be the head of the family.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I think it just depends on the couple. Since there was only a "yes" and "no" choice, I voted for "no". I mean if my future partner has quite a bit more education, experience, and income in a particular field (that we're both in), then I'd imagine I would be listening to him a lot on that front. But in general, I see us as a team/partnership. We're working together: raising a family and maybe fighting cancer/infectious disease, or whatever else we end up doing.


----------



## Who_Am_eYe (Mar 13, 2014)

There should be no head in the family unless it's a single parent. But if there are two parents it should be more of a partnership.


----------



## QueenOfCats (Jan 28, 2011)

No


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I believe that all adults in a household should have equal say in determining their roles. If all partners consent to a relationship in which a man is the "head," and if they all have equal power in deciding to arrange things in such a manner, there is no harm in it. Likewise, if all partners consent to a relationship in which a woman is the "head," and if they all have equal power in deciding to arrange things in such a manner, there is no harm in it. This applies to LGBT relationships and polygamous arrangements as well as heterosexual monogamous relationships. Within any relationship, the participants are free to decide their own boundaries as long as there is consent and nobody is harmed.

If, however, any partner feels coerced into a submissive or dominant role against his/her natural inclinations or desires, the application of headship can become problematic, especially if one is adhering to traditions rather than being attuned to the particular dynamics of his/her own relationship. That is why I feel it is best to approach this topic with caution and sensitivity. 

In my marriage, we are both idealists who value equality, and we are both radical feminists. We don't consider either person the "head" of the household. Even so, In practice, my husband has ended up taking on the more decisive role right now, simply for the sake of convenience. I am currently a homemaker, doing the cooking, laundry, dishes, and other household chores while he works outside of the home. Whenever we must plan anything, it has to fit into his schedule, which he can anticipate better than I can. Therefore, he tends to make all of the travel arrangements and he is the one who is in charge of our finances. Our arrangement is just like what one would expect from a traditional husband-headed household, even though we don't choose to define it in those terms. This arrangement works very well for us, and we still view each other as equal partners. At some point, if I ever end up working outside of the home and making enough money to support both of us, I think we will probably switch roles and he will become the homemaker. For now, we are both comfortable leaving our roles flexible and doing whatever makes the most sense at any given time. 

I don't think it is necessary for either partner to be the head of a household, even short-term. My parents have their preferred tasks, but these do not always align with gender norms. My parents both work outside of the home, and they split the household responsibilities evenly. My mom does a lot of the repairs, mechanical work and organization. My dad keeps the budget and does most of the cooking. I think they both do laundry and they both carry in the fuel for their fireplace as needed. Mom does the dishes, dad does the gardening, and they both take care of the dogs. Each one just does whatever s/he is best at or dislikes the least. Perhaps growing up in such a home is the reason I consider it strange that some people feel the need to divide the tasks unnaturally. Honestly, I doubt that many people actually do, no matter how they label their roles. I have had friends who believed in a male-headed household for religious reasons, and even so, the roles were divided by ability rather than gender. In many cases, headship is more of an ideal than a reality, and people who like the label will use it even when it is not an accurate description of their lifestyles.


----------



## eydimork (Mar 19, 2014)

Since the choice I want was not made, I will respond with a message instead.

Any of the sexes. 
None of the genders. 

Men and women live in a fantasy world that I never truly understood. If a man is supposed to drink beer, then I am not a man. But I am also not a woman, since a woman does something else that I also don't do. To me, men and women seem very unreasonable, and would do more good to those around them if they did not participate in rule and decision making.


----------



## Schneemann (Nov 15, 2013)

Head or leg, who cares ...


----------



## Schneemann (Nov 15, 2013)

But seriously, what an odd question. Do you mean the man should have the last say? Should earn the money? Should do what?


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

DiscoveringSelf said:


> Face it. We live in a patriarchal society.


Well, yeah, but that's not the question here.


> Muscle power subjugates all other forms of power.
> Dear everyone, People are afraid of your dad, not mom. Why is that so?


Because we live in a society that accepts, promotes, and encourages things like.... masculine dominance and the subjugation of women, power discrepancy and abuse of power, violence and brute force. Doesn't mean it SHOULD be that way. Just because someone has muscle power doesn't mean they have to abuse it. There are some (perhaps too few) men in my life who, I'm completely confident, would never lift a finger to hurt me (except in self-defence, I guess, but I doubt that would be necessary). They have the capacity to disproportionately cause harm, but they won't use it inappropriately. Which is how it SHOULD be. 

Which was the question.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

amanda32 said:


> The question isn't should he be, he already is.


What do you mean? Is that like a religious conviction, or is it a resignation to patriarchy, or? Perhaps you were referring to you own life and not society at large?


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Often the man thinks he is the head of the family, and acts that way, but in fact is a dumb dumb.


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

skycloud86 said:


> I'm thinking of it in terms of gender roles and how decisions are made - my own personal view is that gender roles are outdated.


I don't think they are. The problem I am seeing is femininity and masculinity. We are seeing men being more feminized and women more manly. First and foremost a women is a women, there for is feminine, not a bad thing. Propaganda say this is bad or use it too get sex. Masculinity is sold a anti-women and bad, this is the message In today's media market. Today we take in so much media that it's almost brain washing, zombies letting every thing else shape there views of the world and this is only the media, there are other outlets that too get out propaganda. The women's rights movement was powerful, however they didn't sacrifice there femininity in bring change. Women today are told lose your femininity and become like men to have power.


----------



## sraddatz (Nov 7, 2009)

I wonder how well the marriages work out for the extreme feminist. Probably not very well.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

Strelok said:


> Wow, this thread turned into a bunch of redpill bullshit quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Being contrarian just to be isn't for me. I'm me...whether traditional or not. 
Also, my type is intp. I myself am just me.
Also, it may not be a woman's place to cook for men.
I just, personally, prefer that situation.
She holds down the kitchen, I'll hold down the rest of the house.

But, who knows? My own wants are secondary. Principally, I just want us to be happy.


----------



## sraddatz (Nov 7, 2009)

It should be equal for the most part. I think it boils down to I get 50.01 percent, she gets 49.99. That extra .01 is due to me being the strong majority of income, as well as the manual labor I put in to keep the house nice. I want to be appreciated for working my ass off. Not to say a lot of women don't bust ass as a sahm. My wife is not a motivated person. It's all about family dynamic and what works for you. Ultimately it should be as I said, equal. 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

sraddatz said:


> I wonder how well the marriages work out for the extreme feminist. Probably not very well.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


They are lesbians or dominate men or have a man that supports them 100%, which is saying something about the men :*cough*: sissies. Look at FEME In Spain. Example of extreme feminists, in protests they are kissing one another, they walk around nude with propaganda written on there bodies and then degrade men and media for looking at them and taking photos, but they do it to get attention to their ideas. FEME believe the women is god, to top this all off, in some of there violent protest videos, they look like naked cultist dancing around some pro-lifers that were praying in front of a church to end abortion and doing that caused FEME to assault them. If you go to FEME's web page and read there stuff it's really radical, like really radical. Also if you do go too there web page, exit kids out of the room, there will be nudity.

Sorry not FEME it's FEMEN


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

sraddatz said:


> It should be equal for the most part. I think it boils down to I get 50.01 percent, she gets 49.99. That extra .01 is due to me being the strong majority of income, as well as the manual labor I put in to keep the house nice. I want to be appreciated for working my ass off. Not to say a lot of women don't bust ass as a sahm. My wife is not a motivated person. It's all about family dynamic and what works for you. Ultimately it should be as I said, equal.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


Well you have too lover her like Christ loves the church, In Saying this. Take her too dinner, buy her flowers, rebuild a dating life again. Learn new ways to say "I love you" and be creative about it. 

Who cares if you work your ass off and she don't, she dose something and most likely dose a lot that you just don't see because you are at work. However, I don't really know. But the first part still stands.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Jessiethompson said:


> The problem I am seeing is femininity and masculinity. We are seeing men being more feminized and women more manly.


Are you talking about all men and women, or just some? Why is this a problem if it is only some?



> First and foremost a women is a women, there for is feminine, not a bad thing.


Nobody is saying it is, but not all women are feminine or at least aren't very feminine. That's not a bad thing either. Same goes for men and masculinity.



> Propaganda say this is bad or use it too get sex.


Propoganda? From who?



> Masculinity is sold a anti-women and bad, this is the message In today's media market.


Even when there are masculine women?



> Women today are told lose your femininity and become like men to have power.


That is a shame when it comes to women who are naturally feminine, but not all women are feminine.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Jessiethompson said:


> They are lesbians or dominate men or


Neither of these things are bad, especially if consent is given from both sides.



> have a man that supports them 100%, which is saying something about the men :*cough*: sissies.


If anything, the "sissies" are the men whose masculinity is so weak and insecure that it gets threatened by simply being fully supportive of a female partner.


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

First all women are famine, it's a disconnect to say some are "kind" of or " more" than or "less" than. Saying this is taking character away from a women. Propaganda, find feminist posts and theories for last two years, msnbc, cnn, hell Fox News. planned parenthood and supporters. " Women who chooses to have a family is in a trap" that thinking comes from socialists thinking, women should be like men running corporations. It's taking your choice away and saying if you are not "like this" then your anti-women, that is not a feminist idea, it's a conformist idea.


I will find who said theses quotes for you. Might take a bit. Bare with me.


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

skycloud86 said:


> Neither of these things are bad, especially if consent is given from both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, the "sissies" are the men whose masculinity is so weak and insecure that it gets threatened by simply being fully supportive of a female partner.


Yes it's bad. Are you sure you are think in the terms of extreme feminists. Because I have, talk to and argued with a lot of them around the world and the men are not being supported by a female partner in a good way.


----------



## sraddatz (Nov 7, 2009)

I think a man has to check his man card when his wife won't let him do some of the things he wants to do. Like going out with your buddies for beer or fishing. At that point, if you allow that to happen repeatedly, that's a no win situation. The same is true when the roles are reversed. My wife goes out with her sisters and I watch movies with the kids. I had to fight at times for "me" time. She has learned that sometimes, I just need time with another dude, just like she needs girl time.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

I guess if you like abusive relationships... It would "be" ok... Tho, I don't think they are ok. @skycloud86


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Jessiethompson said:


> First all women are famine, it's a disconnect to say some are "kind" of or " more" than or "less" than. Saying this is taking character away from a women. Propaganda, find feminist posts and theories for last two years, msnbc, cnn, hell Fox News. planned parenthood and supporters. " Women who chooses to have a family is in a trap" that thinking comes from socialists thinking, women should be like men running corporations. It's taking your choice away and saying if you are not "like this" then your anti-women, that is not a feminist idea, it's a conformist idea.
> 
> 
> I will find who said theses quotes for you. Might take a bit. Bare with me.


What are you talking about? Where do I say that women can't be feminine or traditional? As a feminist, I am all for women having that choice.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

sraddatz said:


> I think a man has to check his man card when his wife won't let him do some of the things he wants to do.


Firstly, "man card"? Really? Do you actually believe in stupid crap like that, because if so, I really pity you, because the world you live in must be so pathetically insecure.

Secondly, mature adults in a mature relationship can't always just do what they want to do, they aren't children anymore.



> Like going out with your buddies for beer or fishing.


You really are a walking stereotype, aren't you?


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

skycloud86 said:


> What are you talking about? Where do I say that women can't be feminine or traditional? As a feminist, I am all for women having that choice.


You kind of missed the point... Today's feminist movement is trying to take choice away from you in redefining the "women." Who cares if you are traditional or not. That's your choice. But trying too put you into a mold and saying this is the only way and if you don't like it than your not for women improvement.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Jessiethompson said:


> You kind of missed the point... Today's feminist movement is trying to take choice away from you in redefining the "women."


How is it doing this?



> Who cares if you are traditional or not. That's your choice. But trying too put you into a mold and saying this is the only way and if you don't like it than your not for women improvement.


Aren't you doing the exact same thing, putting women into a specific mould?


----------



## jonkay1 (Aug 11, 2012)

Gender is irrelevant. Stereotypes and expectations are merely perpetuated, but when it comes down to individuals it is clear that everyone is absolutely unique. Whoever naturally takes the role will find themselves taking it - if the role is even necessary.


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

skycloud86 said:


> How is it doing this?


Aliens... I joke... How do you implant ideas? We all want knowledge and it's power. 




skycloud86 said:


> Aren't you doing the exact same thing, putting women into a specific mould?


I am human and yes to a point I do put people in a mould to some extent. Yet I believe in free will, so expect that mould too be broken.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

skycloud86 said:


> Firstly, "man card"? Really? Do you actually believe in stupid crap like that, because if so, I really pity you, because the world you live in must be so pathetically insecure.
> 
> Secondly, mature adults in a mature relationship can't always just do what they want to do, they aren't children anymore.
> 
> You really are a walking stereotype, aren't you?


As I said earlier, this thread somehow turned into a bunch of redpill crap, but I'm not sure where these people came from all of a sudden. Either school is already out for summer somewhere, or this forum got linked to on some PUA/redpill/MRA retard outlet and all the degenerates hopped on board. Funny that these people think they're iNtuitives though.


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

jonkay1 said:


> Gender is irrelevant.


Not true.


----------



## Jessiethompson (Mar 26, 2014)

skycloud86 said:


> If I know, how can they be a lot different than I think?


I am simply asking you in a nut shell to seek your information from the source instead of, asking me. You never read the bible, but a few parts of it. I say read the bible then ask me questions. But... Wait your use to getting second hand information as fact, <- that's an assumption.


----------



## Graficcha (Dec 25, 2011)

Kollenhausen said:


> Oh, to be sure you love them. It's just that the shape the love takes is directed by whether you are the dominant partner or not. People associate ideas of dominance with negative stuff; it isn't like that nine times out of ten. The dominant partner (and sometimes this can switch with context) is pleased that the other is trying to please them because it shows love and commitment, and so on. The non-dominant partner is pleased that the dominant partner was pleased because their 'message' of commitment was understood and accepted, and that makes them happy. It's a win-win, not a win-lose.


To anyone still listening, this is the grand ol'e masterly painting of a codependent relationship.


----------



## MysticSnowman (Mar 31, 2014)

I do not think that your gender should determine if you are the head of a family.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Do people feel that if someone takes the lead it automatically makes them above everyone else? If a man is taking the lead in his family, that doesn't mean he believes that his wife and children are below him - in fact same men who have be leader-types have given up their lives to save their families. Taking the lead doesn't not make you above everyone else, it only makes you responsible for those in your care.


----------



## sraddatz (Nov 7, 2009)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Do people feel that if someone takes the lead it automatically makes them above everyone else? If a man is taking the lead in his family, that doesn't mean he believes that his wife and children are below him - in fact same men who have be leader-types have given up their lives to save their families. Taking the lead doesn't not make you above everyone else, it only makes you responsible for those in your care.


Well said. 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

it says "the man" as if you can't have a family without one? there are single moms, and there are families with two moms.

but in a situation where one parent is a girl and the other is a boy, i think the woman should be in charge. men are corrupted by sexism and can't be rational or fair because of it.


----------



## theft23 (Feb 10, 2014)

I don't think they're needs to be any head (that's what she said hah). Running an stable family should be a totally collaborative process.


----------



## Dragunov (Oct 2, 2013)

Raichu said:


> it says "the man" as if you can't have a family without one? there are single moms, and there are families with two moms.
> 
> but in a situation where one parent is a girl and the other is a boy, i think the woman should be in charge. men are corrupted by sexism and can't be rational or fair because of it.


I hope this is sarcasm.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

The origins of The Bible are fallible human beings. Any other conclusion is magical thinking.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> The origins of The Bible are fallible human beings. Any other conclusion is magical thinking.


But _why would god say that?_ — Jessiethompson


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Strelok said:


> But _why would god say that?_ — Jessiethompson


Why would god say what?


----------



## psykt (Apr 2, 2014)

I can't clik one of them because everyone should live how they want. Some families work better with the man in charge, and some don't. There's no correct answer. You just gotta to what's best for you.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> Why would god say what?


I was just referring to this post: http://personalitycafe.com/member-polls/175748-should-man-head-family-6.html#post4890601


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

Dragunov said:


> I hope this is sarcasm.


only slightly


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Strelok said:


> I was just referring to this post: http://personalitycafe.com/member-polls/175748-should-man-head-family-6.html#post4890601


Well, you quoted me, so I thought you had a point to make about my statements.


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

"If you meet the head of the family, chop him off."

- Buddha


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Dosto Yevsky said:


> "If you meet the head of the family, chop him off."
> 
> - Buddha


Where did you find this quote?


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> Where did you find this quote?


Dhammapada, Chapter 7, Verse 42.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Dosto Yevsky said:


> Dhammapada, Chapter 7, Verse 42.


I checked four translations. It's not there. Please site your translation or provide a link. Thanks.


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> I checked four translations. It's not there. Please site your translation or provide a link. Thanks.


This guy told me, maybe it was his translation.


----------



## sassysquid (Jul 16, 2014)

Eckis said:


> Radically different from _everyone_ else's? I'm not so sure about that, but since you're so curious I'll bite.
> 
> I believe that a man should be considered the 'head of house' because that's the way it has always been. . that's the father's role. To me that simply means the "head" (be it, in the absence of a father, the mother, the eldest child, the guardian, etc.) puts the other members of the family before him or herself and makes sure all of their individual needs are met. He's accountable for everyone in the family. I'll also add that I'm a Christian, and the father being the head of the house is biblical.


I see. And by radically different, I meant different from those who have posted. I'm sure there are many others who believe what you believe too, but those people are for some reason not posting much.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

sassysquid said:


> I see. And by radically different, I meant different from those who have posted. I'm sure there are many others who believe what you believe too, but those people are for some reason not posting much.


I know what you mean, haha. And I'm alright with being in the minority here, just sharing what I believe. :]


----------



## Squirrel (Jun 14, 2014)

I don't mind either way as long as the adults are seen as equal by the children. I don't mind traditional ways/values and at the same time, one such as this can weigh heavy on a person. Especially in regards to having the "weight" of being the provider for a family. When the economy started going down, there was a family set up in this situation where the man was the head of household...the "provider" and lost his job. He was so much in despair and basically felt that he had failed, that he ended up killing his entire family and himself.


----------



## Mr.Blayz (Nov 20, 2012)

should be equal, that should be a choice


----------

