It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasr1oftheJedi
You arn't suggesting women can't think as fast as men are you? That sir, would be a fine joke.


Lets do some real examples. I know a Phd Psychologist that is a single mother. Somehow all that nurture thing has one of her kids weighing in at 300 lbs at age 13. He ran over her like a Semi would a Datsun.

The adult female had no control over such a large kid. He did what he wanted. No passing grades, belligerant, nasty room, ran over mom.

It is the definition of dysfunctional family that even the well educated female seemed to have lost control.


It gets down to a simple issue that males are used to the issues of physical methods, women are not. The female can't replace the male's role, nor the male replace the female. But one has to have the higher authority, else you insist on the Baby being divided in half. In too many cases, both can't be right without killing the whole.

As much as the dual role sounds good, it doesn't appear to work in high places.

Just as the Jewish temples kept the women at a distance from the Most Holy, that appears well learned from nature's ways.


In the US today, this dual role game appears to fail and the 300 lb 13-year olds run the system.


You must have a religion that tells to do as you want, entertain even the irrational concepts. Allow the kids to eat all they want and be 300 lbs at 13 years, forget school and passing, forget learning housekeeping, and run over the single mom because you can. Else, one might reason that some of those old religions had a method for males being the ultimate single decision maker. Else, you divide the kid in half, and like methods kill the world's Benevolvent goals and moral compass.





edit on 26-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Dysfunctional idealism




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Lets do some real examples. I know a Phd Psychologist that is a single mother. Somehow all that nurture thing has one of her kids weighing in at 300 lbs at age 13. He ran over her like a Semi would a Datsun.

The adult female had no control over such a large kid. He did what he wanted.



Sounds like that kid lacked discipline. Spare the rod and spoil the child is what the bible belt taught my peeps. I'd never use a belt, mind you...but a good swat on the backside every now and again to a child that is being abusive will make em' think twice. Adult Female can accomplish this as well. But if either parent was really doing their job, it wouldn't be necessary. See, kids can get wild, but only as much as you allow them. They crave boarders. They want to know what's right and what's wrong. And those that step into the "wrong" are usually doing it for attention, so, as a parent, pay some attention to your kiddo, and you're kiddo won't be a spaz.


Originally posted by MagnumOpus
It is the definition of dysfunctional family that even the well educated female seemed to have lost control.



Educated in one arena (like science in this case) doesn't eqaual educated in all arenas, (like parenting, obviously, in her case.)


Originally posted by MagnumOpus
It gets down to a simple issue that males are used to the issues of physical methods, women are not. The female can't replace the male's role, nor the male replace the female. But one has to have the higher authority, else you insist on the Baby being divided in half. In too many cases, both can't be right without killing the whole.



Again, me and my wife discipline my son when it calls for it. Neither has issues, as he knows a move against one of us is a move against both of us. We stay united, as a team. That's the role of parents, and marriage for that matter. You're a team. You stand together. I have no idea what you experienced to see things so easily divided, but, in my house, the boy knows the rules. And not just because as a man I'm the only one that knows how to lay them down.
In the end, is she more forgiving, more generous, more caring than I am? No doubt. I demand, while she requests. This is the different roles in play, but when it reaches authority, there is no difference, does that make sense?


Originally posted by MagnumOpus
As much as the dual role sounds good, it doesn't appear to work in high places.


Only because my generation hasn't taken it's place yet on the world stage. This is simply an issue of time.


Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Just as the Jewish temples kept the women at a distance from the Most Holy, that appears well learned from nature's ways.


Ancient concepts from a world order that has already passed away. Again, what choice did Gen Y have but to break this barrier down? You demand we both work, and both raise a child. It's impossible without giving women the rights they fought and have won.
It's time to leave the past, and enjoy the future. We need female thoughts and concepts as much as we should also not degrade men into being "the bad guy" just because our fathers' treated them like a luxury. That thought process is extinct. It's only a matter of time, and that time, has been now, for some time, now.

I don't mean to ride your back side, MO. I really enjoy the discussion, you made me think, and that's always a plus, so please believe me when I say, I appreciate the thoughts, and conversation. In the end, I think you and me come from different walks of life is all it really is. Both of us are entitled to our opinions, perspective and thoughts, and I enjoyed reading yours ^.^



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
No one should rule over anyone, BUT everyone have to admit that MEN AND WOMEN CANNOT BE EQUAL!!! we are not meant to be equal, sorry not going to sugarcoat these but men does something best that women cant ever come near and it goes for men as well.

Saying we are all equal is just dumb, and lying to yourself to fit into society.


Right, no one should rule over anyone, but when I think of marriage and children I imagine a ship with two captains. What would happen if one captain gave an order to veer to starboard, while the other captain ordered veer to port?
The crew would be left confused and feeling insecure.

When two parents agree to be equal, it brings about the same confusion and insecurity in the children. One parent says yes, the other says no. Do this/Don't do that.

Shouldn't there be at least an agreement that one parent has final say on matters? I don't care which parent, as long as the child grows up in an environment with consistent rules and without one parent undermining the other.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Maybe I'm spoiled in this arena, but why can't both parents come to an agreement that doesn't divide the child? That makes no sense. We're all wise enough to know the tricks kids play, we use to be that kid. You know when your child is asking for something you know your partner wouldn't agree with. Why would you create that division? Sit down and talk with the one you love. Set up a game plan, and stick to it. It's really that simply.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Anyone who insists on "ruling over" anyone else clearly has serious ego problems and shouldn't be allowed to rule over themselves, let alone anyone else... just sayin



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Right, no one should rule over anyone, but when I think of marriage and children I imagine a ship with two captains. What would happen if one captain gave an order to veer to starboard, while the other captain ordered veer to port?
The crew would be left confused and feeling insecure.

When two parents agree to be equal, it brings about the same confusion and insecurity in the children. One parent says yes, the other says no. Do this/Don't do that.

Shouldn't there be at least an agreement that one parent has final say on matters? I don't care which parent, as long as the child grows up in an environment with consistent rules and without one parent undermining the other.


I think the ole rule is man cannot serve two masters and the same rule applies to kids. One is expected to rule over Children for their own good. It is called parenting. One parent needs to have the ultimate decision authority so the kid can't split the parents.

These days, the female single mother can't control their kids in too many cases. It often churns out kids that know no limits.

In the Divorced Family with Joint Custody the kids often learns to play each parent against the other generally making chaos and the kid wins. They either get permission from one parent to do something the other resists and sometimes the parents do this to spite the other parent.

Then the kids tend to play each parent over spankings by claiming child abuse, so then child and family services gets in the game. Who becomes the Master then is a Chaos where no one knows. Parents can't correct the kids behaviors, the kid becomes the ward of the state. If they don't straighten up in foster care, then end up in jail. Who won with spare the rod nurture games---nobody.

This is the state of America these days.

Generally the parents confronted with serious discipline issues has to tell the kids that if they want to scream child abuse, they can become wards of the state and they won't live under your roof.

Thus, we find what too much nurture the kid and spare the rod does, when the issue that worked for the better of all concerned was the cannot serve two masters theme and for some kids it takes the rod and the strength to adminster the rod.


So, lets see the 110 lb mother take the rod to the 300 lb 13 year old male kid and see who wins.


The current system takes away the power of parents to discipline the kid, and this generally means they loose control of the family. Then the state plays the family, and the kid slowly winds up in trouble and often in jail.

There are problems today. There is no master. But there has to be a benevolent master for things to work


Thus, one sees that society can easily become dysfunctional when these issues of pure nurture methods are applied. Generally one application of the paddle for a kid out of control sets the standard and you don't have to paddle them much afterwards.

It would appear that there is no total equality, as hormones are not equal. Ultimately, somewhere down the road that man's rules needed to be male oriented and one master themed.

Generally, the like issue for kids tends to be the ultimate issue of genetics tells it is better if males get to be the master. The male leading the family as the father works well, and the same idea as the male leading the greater society as the father works best historically.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
When I was a child, I was MUCH more afraid of getting a spanking from my mother than I was from my father. My father was much more soft-hearted and usually went much easier on us, especially if we made it seem like we were in agony. My mother, however, knew better and didn't fall for it and she was definitely "the boss" of the family.... just like her mother before her.
We have no prison inmates in my family, everyone works for a living, we have educations and have good social standings... much better than many in this geographical area, so, with that example, perhaps the woman should rule over the man?
Of course, I don't believe that. The parents must be a team. They must work together as one. If one rules over the other, respect is lost for the other. Both parents are equal, both parents are to be respected and if the discuss things instead of hanging out in separate rooms all the time, they have a united front and the child can't pit one against the other. .... what kind of adult is going to ask "What did your mom/dad say about it?" and expect teh kid to tell the truth anyway???



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by luciddream
 

your right men and women are not equal in abilities.. but both men and women should have equal rights. Rights are something your born with, they should not be given to only a certain group of people. Equal rights for all. But now that i think about it, they're not rights at all, they are privileges. For example, go on wikipedia and type in Japanese Americans 1942.
For those of you who don't know what happened:


Japanese-American internment was the relocation and internment by the United States government in 1942 of about 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese who lived along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[1][2] The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. All who lived on the West Coast of the United States were interned, while in Hawaii, where the 150,000-plus Japanese Americans composed over one-third of the population, an estimated 1,200[3] to 1,800 were interned.[4] Of those interned, 62% were American citizens.[5][6]

When the people needed their rights the most, the government took them away.. You can't take away rights, but you can take away privileges. That's all it is, temporary privileges.

Equal rights, equal privileges... so are you saying that the government took away the people's rights...but ohh you can't take away rights, the government took away their privileges? Either way, no matter how you slice it, there is no equality.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by luciddream
No one should rule over anyone, BUT everyone have to admit that MEN AND WOMEN CANNOT BE EQUAL!!! we are not meant to be equal, sorry not going to sugarcoat these but men does something best that women cant ever come near and it goes for men as well.

Saying we are all equal is just dumb, and lying to yourself to fit into society.


Right, no one should rule over anyone, but when I think of marriage and children I imagine a ship with two captains. What would happen if one captain gave an order to veer to starboard, while the other captain ordered veer to port?
The crew would be left confused and feeling insecure.

When two parents agree to be equal, it brings about the same confusion and insecurity in the children. One parent says yes, the other says no. Do this/Don't do that.

Shouldn't there be at least an agreement that one parent has final say on matters? I don't care which parent, as long as the child grows up in an environment with consistent rules and without one parent undermining the other.

That makes me think of when Lorretta Lynn tried to get married.
If one parent says no, just shrug your shoulders and go and ask the other parent, imo that's not an ideal way to honor parents.
Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
If there really are as many "believers" as people claim to be, then "Happy Father's Day" would be more like, "Happy Contributor's Day".
By the way I don't disagree with anything you have stated in your post.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I don't believe that men should rule over women and I don't believe that women should rule over men.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To subtract



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders
I don't believe that men should rule over women and I don't believe that women should rule over men.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To subtract



In the times of old those that ruled over others were the kings and queens, and most of that great wealth built via ruling over others is now the roots of capitalism via corportatism. Also, the religions tended to rule and gain huge wealth. Case in point the Eastern (Vatican) and Western Roman Empire (Emperor). Later, the UK Royals, etc.

In order for the few not to rule over the masses, men or women, it means wealth equity. Else, Money Rules

Obviously, it tends to be those with the money make the rules. Most of the big money is held via males. Is the Pope a female or a male? Ever seen the wealth holdings of the Vatican?. Seen any Female Priests?

Should the more general issues of anyone ruling over anyone else apply? Should we notice what is really happening and not keep the view at only a low level, but look at what elects politicians to essentially make the laws for special interests to rule over the little people.

Jesus and the Essene had a more socialistic theme, and the temple elites, kings, rules had the idea of only the few have the bulk of money and power--all males.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders

By the way I don't disagree with anything you have stated in your post.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.


Then why did you just make me your foe? We're just chatting; shaking the tree of truth to see if any fruits fall out. Okay, sometimes I get the wrong tree and a bunch of nuts come flying out.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

In the times of old those that ruled over others were the kings and queens, and most of that great wealth built via ruling over others is now the roots of capitalism via corportatism. Also, the religions tended to rule and gain huge wealth. Case in point the Eastern (Vatican) and Western Roman Empire (Emperor). Later, the UK Royals, etc.

In order for the few not to rule over the masses, men or women, it means wealth equity. Else, Money Rules

Obviously, it tends to be those with the money make the rules. Most of the big money is held via males. Is the Pope a female or a male? Ever seen the wealth holdings of the Vatican?. Seen any Female Priests?

Should the more general issues of anyone ruling over anyone else apply? Should we notice what is really happening and not keep the view at only a low level, but look at what elects politicians to essentially make the laws for special interests to rule over the little people.

Jesus and the Essene had a more socialistic theme, and the temple elites, kings, rules had the idea of only the few have the bulk of money and power--all males.


You mistake me for someone who doesn't know their place in government. No one can make you feel inferior unless you believe those who want you to feel inferior.
I don't need to see the weath holding s of the greasy Vatican to know it is there. You can make any damn rule you well please, but that doesn't mean I automatically feel obligated to obey them, not even on pain of death.
Until you show me otherwise in your rhetoric that you have read the bible and found out how kings came to be and what the bible says about the "rulers of this age", your point is kaput imo. It's not about "How come there's no female priests?!?!", it doesn't matter whether anyone be male or female, so long as the truth is paramount.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Wonders

By the way I don't disagree with anything you have stated in your post.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.


Then why did you just make me your foe? We're just chatting; shaking the tree of truth to see if any fruits fall out. Okay, sometimes I get the wrong tree and a bunch of nuts come flying out.

Aww did I hurt your feelings? I agreed with what you wrote in your post because it's true so far as I know. Why shouldn't I consider you a "friendly foe", you certainly are not my friend, why not be grateful you were mentioned at all.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Wonders

By the way I don't disagree with anything you have stated in your post.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.


Then why did you just make me your foe? We're just chatting; shaking the tree of truth to see if any fruits fall out. Okay, sometimes I get the wrong tree and a bunch of nuts come flying out.

Aww did I hurt your feelings? I agreed with what you wrote in your post because it's true so far as I know. Why shouldn't I consider you a "friendly foe", you certainly are not my friend, why not be grateful you were mentioned at all.


Honestly, I'm responding because I'm bored. So, why am I not your friend?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders
It's not about "How come there's no female priests?!?!", it doesn't matter whether anyone be male or female, so long as the truth is paramount.


OK---what job do Nuns get? School Teachers. Why? Biblical tradiations. Is that going to change, No.

And why DNA / hormones. Traditionally, one Sex is the house keeper and the other the house protector. It is ingrained in the mind of humans. The truth is it is impossible to change.

It is a long standing theme over tens of thousands of years, this mold some like to break and expect no problems. If one looks at the issues of the females in the work place, all these problems come up that disrupt too much. Women have sensitive ears, so guys can't talk like guys around them. Say Hello the wrong way the there is some sexual complaint made. Too many women use sex favors to get to the higher levels. Half the workforce is tip-toe around the female land mine issues.

Give a female a gun in a war zone and the entire company will get killed trying to protect the female. These are ingrained issues that don't change on a female's whim. One can't change ingrained issues.

Females enter the Male working world and decided they needed to change everthing to suit their female rules, and in the process it basically feminizes the males. So, now all the system has yielded to the weaker and feminate rules. So, guess the guys need to complete and paint their nails, wear high cut dresses, and spend more time talking than working. And be sensitive and cry more, show their feelings and be emotional.

The paramount truth of kings and royal blood is a rather simple thing to pick up, if you go looking outside the Bible's truncated history. Those original Creator gods of Sumeria were males.

I think the type casting is so set, that we won't ever see Hillery make president. But feminiazation, given time, the male president will be cast into wearing a Blue Dress and being conniving.


It gets down to the females don't like their traditional jobs. If they want to have kids, then they need to commit to raising the kids in place of letting strangers raise the kids. If they want a family with kids, then the tradiation is commit to the family and kids. If they want career, then don't have kids. Dress highly non-sexual, no make up or special attention items, and dress like the guys in the area of work do. Don't try to play the Princess like too many daddys raise their little girls. Most of the females in America are raised with this special attention, which they can't seem to break their needs for being noticed.

Don't even sign up for work areas that require strength to perform, else all the guys have to do their work and yours too. Expect to have tough ears and not complain every time a construction worker says 4 letter words nearby.

All this feminization of the workplace has already gone to far with excessive rules for whinny complaints. If they want total control of speech of the work environments, stay home.

Forcing the female rules of order into the male systems doesn't work and causes lots of problems.


So, as this Iran war forms up---lets put an entire female force on the front line and let them die just like the guys have. How many males died in these wars compared to females. Lets get that balanced out first. Else, playing by the rules would have just as many females dead in wars as males.

I'll bet if the US goes to war with females on the front lines, the US will loose, then all the US females will be wearing Burkas from here on out.

Lets also see the females get the same dirty high risk jobs in the military and loss of personal comforts. Lets see the female death toll in these wars be the same as the males. Else, lets cut to the chase that females still can't carry the heavy weight.

The real issue is most of the females in the US were raised to be daddy's little girl, the center of attention, dressed to get attention and they can't break out that mold to become equal to males. The truth is this special theme of females is ingrained in the US. Else, we would see just as many females killed in wars as males.

The age for females being special daddys little girls and expecting the whole work environment to be turned upside down to accomodate sensity ears and their religious morality on 4-letter words has to go.

When that happens I suppose we won't see Condi Rice out shopping for hundreth pair of shoes while the WTC falls because she forced Texaco's oil games into the Middle East.

So, lets make the females equal and make sure they get their RAD doses in reactor systems work, they get an equal share of the high risk mining jobs and others, and lets make gender equity in the battle field and make the male female death rates the same.


edit on 27-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Forcing the female rules of order into the male systems doesn't work and causes lots of problems.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I do not want to rule over anyone, i just want to be.

Just let me be.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by quedup
Short and sweet - the answer is NO!

If women ruled over Men - there's be no wars and killing - end of.

You also do realise that Woman was portrayed as a Harlet in the Bible - this was a deliberate intention in order that Man would be enabled to rule over Women - well guess what:

It's 2012 and life have moved on - women are now coming into their own at last - trouble with this is, men don't like it as they now have to get off their butts.

Young men nowadays are off their Butts and should be proud of themselves but this has only come about by women refusing to be the Door Mats and substitute Mothers any longer.


+ 1

Regards
DL



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by alkesh
gotta love religion. it treats everyone so fair and equally..a real man would use his logic and reason as his guidelines and not some book written by a bunch of bigoted ,ignorant hate mongers.


You are right. It is to the good men.
Not Christians generally speaking.
Thank God most Christians are not following their religions and are just in it for tradition and cultural reasons.

Regards
DL



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by quedup
Short and sweet - the answer is NO!

If women ruled over Men - there's be no wars and killing - end of.


Lol no

www.cracked.com...

if women like Margaret thatcher are anything to by then having them rule wouldnt lead to a peaceful society at all.


Though no men shouldn't rule over women at all. The notion is ridiculous.


And men ruling over women is not?

Regards
DL



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join