Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
And scary enough, I think people with a similiar POV, and people who miss the old MTV will agree, MTV needs to go.We could have better role models than rich, spoiled, dumb whores.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And scary enough, I think people with a similiar POV, and people who miss the old MTV will agree, MTV needs to go.We could have better role models than rich, spoiled, dumb whores.
I don't even support the feminist movement! I just want to know what the difference is. Why does that strong support and great role-model have to be a traditional man? I especially don't understand it since we're talking about girls who have only about a million times more things in common with their mother than their father when it comes to this issue.I'm going to bow out for now since people view my comments as sexist. This is the exact problem I see with the feminist movement - you're driving away the very men who could help.
Thanks for proving me right. I knew you were still out there.
Ðanisty;814299 said:I don't even support the feminist movement! I just want to know what the difference is. Why does that strong support and great role-model have to be a traditional man? I especially don't understand it since we're talking about girls who have only about a million times more things in common with their mother than their father when it comes to this issue.
The OP stated that in a store they had things for pre-pubescent girls. So they are how old, no older than about 9 I guess. i was using the age 5 as an example. I find it interesting that not many posters addressed that part of the OP about the thongs to young girls. WHat business have they got wearing that anyway? Women wear thongs and sexy lingerie to look and feel sexy. So a girl not even in puberty is looking and feeling sexy for whom?
fullyveiled muslimah - I don't think you and I are going to be able to see eye to eye on the issue of strong male role models, because honestly, I'd prefer my world genderless.
Most people would agree that children are increasingly sexualized these days. For instance, not too long ago, a major department store was selling thongs to little pre-pubic girls with phrases like "eye candy" embroidered on them. So, what, if anything, can be done to halt the sexualization of children?
Yeah but the world ain't genderless. There are men and women and we are different. I'm not saying you have or haven't recognized that.
What I wish though is that the general idea that man=authority=bad thing automatically would be revised. Or woman=authority=a good thing automatically when that isn't true either. I'm not directing this at anyone particularly just in general. If a man is the head of the household, that doesn't automatically mean he is a subjugating, controlling, sexist jerk. A woman allowing her husband to be in that position doesn't automatically mean she is stupid, submissive, weak, overly emotional wreck who needs a man to control her in order to live.
This is off topic for the most part, but ties in I think. Nutshell gave a strong male role model as one possible solution among many, and I support it. I just wish his comments didn't garner an automatic accusation of being sexist. I think anytime someone mentions gender roles it is associated with sexism before it is given due consideration.
This is off topic for the most part, but ties in I think. Nutshell gave a strong male role model as one possible solution among many, and I support it. I just wish his comments didn't garner an automatic accusation of being sexist. I think anytime someone mentions gender roles it is associated with sexism before it is given due consideration.
Why couldn't they be equal partners in the relationship instead?
Like Danisty, I would like to know why a male influence would fix the problem. Nobody seems to be able to answer that question.
Who said that having a different job to do in the relationship means inequality in it?
This is what bothered me too. He said he used the wrong word, but obviously he has some feeling to that effect.What nutshell initially said was "stop the feminization of men." That's what I personally took issue with. As though there were such a thing as a "real man."
If there is a leader, then there is not equality. The leader is given more power than the follower.Who said that having a different job to do in the relationship means inequality in it? Women who chose to carry out their marriages like this ARE equal partners in them. As a matter of fact we are the ones who actually control the whole situation anyway. It needs to be recognized that the actual role of a leader is to serve not subjugate.
Marriage is a partnership. There are businesses that are partnerships.Thing is that any group of people or organization, or institution (including the institution of marriage) has a leader and chain of command. You name for me the system or group that has no leader that lasted. Every business has an owner, every company has a CEO, every job a boss or supervisor, every country a presdent/prime minister, and on and on. So why would relationships be any different. Having a leader need not mean domination and dictatorship. A good leader always is in a position of servitude and seeing to the needs of those he/she leads, or else they won't be leaders for long.
The same could be said about a lack of gender roles.We see things differently obviously which is fine by me. I have no problem with gender roles, because when done correctly the benefit much outweigh the harm.