Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 14:24:07 GMT -5
I just let DH "be the man" and I was "the woman" no not in the dirty sense. I cooked dinner and did the dishes, and he just mowed the lawn. I probably disrespected him though because I laughed at him using the little itty bitty electric mower that our landlord supplied our unit with.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,720
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 30, 2012 14:36:12 GMT -5
TG--awesome post!
This is an interesting thread and I hope to see some more comments, but I will have to be careful not to get overly sensitive.
I DO NOT want to treat my partner like a child. It is the very, very last thing I would ever want. But for some reason it seems like some men want to find another 'mom' to take care of them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 14:59:28 GMT -5
On nagging, here is my take. Some women nag when they don't feel heard by their men. There are men who either are lazy or oblivious to all the things that really need to get done. And, as more gets heaped on the women, she expresses this discontent by nagging. I think that when a woman truly feels her spouse is on board and will help and care for the needs and the maintaining of the home and family that the nagging will stop. Women often nag out of anxiety that something needs done and if the guy doesn't do it, then it falls on her shoulders to do on top of all the other things that get done. So, if your lady is nagging more, i think men need to ask themselves why. Many perfectly lovely, charming women can turn into nags when stressed out and overburdened. And, of course there are just some gals who are nags regardless and hopefully you didn't choose to marry one.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 30, 2012 15:01:53 GMT -5
Really? You should see me when I'm actually talking about sex. Sooo.... How you all doin'? ;D
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 30, 2012 15:17:03 GMT -5
TG--awesome post! This is an interesting thread and I hope to see some more comments, but I will have to be careful not to get overly sensitive. I DO NOT want to treat my partner like a child. It is the very, very last thing I would ever want. But for some reason it seems like some men want to find another 'mom' to take care of them. And I know a few women who prefer to have their DH be their "father" and have him do all the work rather than be assertive/competent themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 15:39:09 GMT -5
In a perfect relationship the two parties would be equals; but to my knowledge very few are perfect. I am a firm believer is the "social order". Everyone's personality and abilities puts them into some "position" in the group. "Being the man" to me means understanding your situation and living to your full potential; whatever that is. That doesn't mean that the male is always higher in the pecking order than the female. Respect is understanding this potential level and treating it with all the due reverence it deserves; where ever in the pecking order it falls. That cuts both ways.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 30, 2012 16:03:50 GMT -5
I am a firm believer is the "social order". Everyone's personality and abilities puts them into some "position" in the group. "Being the man" to me means understanding your situation and living to your full potential; whatever that is. That doesn't mean that the male is always higher in the pecking order than the female. Respect is understanding this potential level and treating it with all the due reverence it deserves; where ever in the pecking order it falls. That cuts both ways. Why? Does that not reduce the individual to being merely a cog in a wheel? Granted, the overwhelming majority of us do in fact fill that role in most areas of our lives, but I would strongly object to that being the determining factor of my value. And I would take less issue if you used that as your definition of being A man as opposed to being THE man, which in the context of this thread means within a relationship. And for the record, my definition of a true man is: Someone who is wise enough to know what he wants, is strong enough to go out and get what he wants, and is sensitive enough to care about how he gets it.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,720
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 30, 2012 16:19:09 GMT -5
And I know a few women who prefer to have their DH be their "father" and have him do all the work rather than be assertive/competent themselves. There are those too.
|
|
NotSoFair
Established Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 22:02:59 GMT -5
Posts: 426
|
Post by NotSoFair on Jun 30, 2012 17:48:36 GMT -5
Awesome posts. Keep them coming.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 17:49:57 GMT -5
Yeah, a thread to only hear the perspective of men on all kinds of things would be cool!
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 30, 2012 17:55:53 GMT -5
I have this hanging in my DS's room:
If
If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too: If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream---and not make dreams your master; If you can think---and not make thoughts your aim, If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same:. If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build'em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings, And never breathe a word about your loss: If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings---nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much: If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And---which is more---you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 30, 2012 18:44:11 GMT -5
Yeah, that's nice, but it's a little long for a soundbite.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 19:27:38 GMT -5
I want to get that framed for DS's room.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 30, 2012 20:26:59 GMT -5
In a perfect relationship the two parties would be equals; but to my knowledge very few are perfect. I am a firm believer is the "social order". Everyone's personality and abilities puts them into some "position" in the group. "Being the man" to me means understanding your situation and living to your full potential; whatever that is. That doesn't mean that the male is always higher in the pecking order than the female. Respect is understanding this potential level and treating it with all the due reverence it deserves; where ever in the pecking order it falls. That cuts both ways. Define social order then. Yes society and YM have a pecking order. Some YMers measure worthiness of a person by how much income they are making or not making for that matter. Some like me believe everyone is created equal by God. Everyone. Including the people I adore and the people I struggle to find a redeeming value in because of my human personality. The divine in me is not fooled. I am always your equal and you are always mine. One's value in the social order changes upon conditions so it depends which social order you find yourself in and what is considered valuable then. I'm not clear what you mean about respecting this potential level and treating it with the reverence it deserves. If you are my coworker and the boss treats you as the favored one even though all the other coworkers know and believe Jane is better. Do you or Jane fall higher on the pecking order? Are we being reverent because the boss likes you better or because we all agree Jane is the better allover employee? If we get a new boss that realizes Jane is the best employee overall should and does that change our reverence for Jane or for you? We all have value and depending on the group of the moment it changes. I maybe the third best Analyst at work yet the best volleyball team captain in the league and my SO and I have different ideas sometimes whose better than whom at certain things. And lastly if I have the potential to be the best analyst does that mean anything before I achieve it?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 30, 2012 20:52:11 GMT -5
"If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same:." This is YM, only a few us know they are imposters. Some of it I disagree with because it appears to say don't be too exceptional or too involved in the world. And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise If all men count with you, but none too much If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 30, 2012 21:31:32 GMT -5
The man being the head of the family isn't about mindless dominion. It's about who gets the final word if a husband and wife aren't able to come to consensus. Ideally (and I daresay, typically), assuming a man loves and cherishes his wife, and a wife loves and respects her husband, both will seek input from the other and act in each other's best interests. True impasses will only rarely crop up. "Man as the head of the household" is an iron-clad peacekeeping clause. It means that if husband and wife come to an impasse, the man's will is paramount. This may sound paternalistic (because it is), but it's also quite often the salvation of a marriage. The feel-good notions that the participant "best suited to make the decision" or "most qualified in that particular area" or "didn't get to make the last decision" fail miserably in practice because impasses arise precisely because husband and wife can't agree on who is "best suited" to make the decision. And heuristics like "didn't get to make the last decision" are so arbitrary that when people's backs are to the wall and they're convince they're right, they couldn't give a toot about whatever arbitrary heuristics they agreed to earlier. Failure to have a clear decision maker breeds enmity. It breeds strife. Speaking to Christians: the Bible says clearly in many scriptures: "women, be subject to your husbands". It doesn't say this because the husband is always right. It says it so that there is order instead of chaos, a resolution instead of division and endless bickering. It yields a simple, doctrinal, and definitive (as opposed to arbitrary) last word on the decision. I believe our "enlightened" shift to the view that everything will magically work out if there is no definitive decision maker or that "reason will prevail" (again, in a situation where by definition at least one individual is being unreasonable, and both are being obstinate) is no small part of why divorce, marital infidelity, etc. have skyrocketed in the past few decades. Husbands and wives are cast as combatants rather than a cohesive unit. To the ladies among us: if you truly love and respect your husband, have a little faith that he loves you back and is doing his best to act in your (collective) best interest. If you can't say this about your hubby, why on earth did you marry him? To the men: having the final word means you have the responsibility to be a servant leader, mindful of your wife's needs. The above applies mainly to Christian men and women, to whom scripture might actually mean something. For those who could care less, "Man has the final word." is just as hollow and arbitrary as any other heuristic. I believe a couple will benefit from it if they agree to it and stick to it through thick and thin, but I really don't see that happening if it's just "one philosophy among thousands". For alternatives, take your pick: "alternate major decisions", "scream at each other until one of you caves", "appoint the woman the final decision maker, in which case the man feels utterly emasculated", "bring friends in to arbitrate the matter and turn a family spat into a neighbourhood drama", "get a divorce, citing irreconcilable differences" (which happens all too often ). As I say: in a good marriage, the number of situations where the paternal "peacemaking clause" needs to be exercised are relatively few. It doesn't mean the marriage isn't a partnership, and it doesn't automatically make the man a tyrant.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 21:53:43 GMT -5
You forgot Rochambeau.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,931
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Jun 30, 2012 21:54:55 GMT -5
So, I'm divorced, but I work with all guys. I go about it with "would you do that while I do this", seems to work well enough (of course, it's their job to get the work done, but...) However, there are some guys who just don't get it (I could never be married to one of them). For years, there was a small group of us that worked awesome together. If I was busy getting something prepped, I could ask "hey, could you go grab a ladder while I set this up?" and they'd get a ladder. Or, they would ask "hey, if you're going back to the shop, could you grab a bolt for me?" They would do the same thing with me. Then I worked with dumbass. He was standing around doing nothing, and decided he was going to go get something in the shop. I asked him if he would grab a ladder on the way back (since I was busy getting everything else done, and he had taken my ladder and tied it off in another area). He went to the boss and complained that I "told" him to go get a ladder for me. I explained to the boss how the rest of us work together and this guy wasn't doing anything but standing there watching everyone else work. He no longer works there Anyway, it seems to make it better when they know I'm not trying to get out of something, but I'm also busy. "Would you take out the garbage while I do the dishes" or "so I can start cleaning the fridge" or "will you mow the yard while I give the dog/kids a bath". Kind of says "now" without saying "now" and still gives a clear desired time for it to get done. Also acknowledges you're busy without saying "I do everything around here".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 30, 2012 22:04:28 GMT -5
I can imagine that trip to the marriage counselor. :-\
"So, yes, she got scissors and I chose paper, I admit, but this sink she wants, lemme tell you about this hideous sink..."
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 30, 2012 22:41:14 GMT -5
Usually a loved one does act in the best interest of the beloved. Sometimes they do not. Many examples abound in medical situations including spouses, parents who prolong the suffering of someone because they can't let go. They know its the wrong thing to do, but they feel compelled to make them hang on by any means necessary because they want what they want. Plus, if your spouse is currently mad at you they may take advantage of that fact to actively diss you under the auspices of I'm the man.
Also, have you ever had someone in your life where you trust them with most things but you totally disagree with them in one area? h
I realize Virgil you are OK with this as a Christian but I wonder if you would really be as OK with it if you were the exact same person you are now except as a woman you looked like an attractive female tennis star. Would you be willing to let your wife who would actually be a guy now and the head of household make those tie-breakers?
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jun 30, 2012 23:28:00 GMT -5
...:::"I'm not very gender oriented so I don't get or understand what "being the man" means to you in that context.":::...
Think of it this way: whenever someone advises someone else to "be a man", what they really mean is usually among the following:
- Do what needs to be done, regardless of whether it is the thing you want to do. - Just accept a lousy situation without complaining. - Take charge of the situation. - Don't display traits the situation does not demand (varies by the individual saying it). - Do not show any weakness (also varies with the individual saying it).
I hope that helps.
...:::"Indeed men don't like to be treated like children and we women shouldn't nag. But what if your guy is one of those men who is oblivious to what needs doing?":::...
OK here is another great example of respect. SKIP THE BUT!!!!! "But" is the word that separates the part of the sentence a person really means, from the part that is just empty lip service. Some people just cannot let a sentence go without a "but". They have to get on record that there is an exception.
I don't mean the above to imply that differences of opinion are unfounded. As has been made clear, delivery counts for a LOT.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jun 30, 2012 23:36:04 GMT -5
...:::"On nagging, here is my take. Some women nag when they don't feel heard by their men.":::...
Nagging is like terrorism, in that it is spectacularly effective, but in the absolute worst way possible, laying waste to everything around. Giving in to nagging means demonstrating that nagging works, which no man wants to do because it leads to more nagging.
It is also an extremely self-fulfilling prophecy. The woman then thinks "I HAVE to nag or nothing gets done", so she goes straight to nagging, which the man either gives in to so she shuts up, or holds out longer to prove that he doesn't want to be nagged. Most of the time the nagging is probably resulting from mismatched timetables, which I cover in my next quote.
At the very least, it guarantees that the job will be done in the shoddiest, quickest, bare minimum that it takes to get the nag off our backs.
...:::"There are men who either are lazy or oblivious to all the things that really need to get done.":::...
Consider that "things that really need to get done" is a highly RELATIVE judgment. Some people apply higher levels of importance than really necessary. I personally consider some relaxation time as something that "must get done". DW, would rather have a counter that is white-glove showroom clean, at the expense of relaxation. The timetable is also very relative. If she had her way, dishes would be done before we ate. I refuse, after spending an hour cooking, to sit down to a lukewarm meal so the dishes can be done sooner.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 0:34:23 GMT -5
OMG, I just lost a thoughtful post!
To try to recap, I have similar views as Virgil. I don't talk about it much here, because it seems to be a minority opinion and I don't want to fight about it.
Plus, I'm a mass of contradictions anyway. I'm traditional enough to believe that men should provide and protect (and that most of them have a need to do so), but modern enough to believe that women should be able to do those things for themselves.
I also believe men should be leaders or head of the household. But he's also suppose to cherish his wife. If he does, he'll value and respect her strengths, opinions and ideas and she'll be part of the process of making major decisions. I don't think that allowing a man to be a man or letting him lead has to mean that he and his wife aren't partners in life.
As far as respecting men, I think part of it is acknowledging the things he does to take care of his family. One thing I've learned from talking to men in real life is that "Thank you honey" in words or action, matters. Men seem to need to feel needed. And a little appreciation goes a long way with them.
These are just my opinions, and of course, they're "generally speaking".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 0:56:10 GMT -5
appoint the woman the final decision maker, in which case the man feels utterly emasculated", But WHY do men feel emasculated if the woman is the final decision maker? I don't get that. Why can't the woman be the "peacekeeper" or whatever it was that Virgil called it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 1, 2012 1:08:45 GMT -5
These are potential abuses of the rule. I'll add, though: if the man is determined to be unreasonable (and if "unreasonable" truly is unreasonable, not simply a perception or a subjective viewpoint), there is no universally "good" resolution to the standoff. My point is not that peacemaker clause always results in the right decision being made, but rather that a point ("the" point) exists where the penalty of forcing the "right" decision outweighs the presumptive benefit of that decision. For all but the most extreme cases (such as a man committing grievous civil or moral crimes, etc.), if a wife loves her husband, if she is unable to persuade him and she has moved him to a point where he has put his foot down, the couple has reached "the" point. The husband may be acting irresponsibly or irrationally, and he may not be. The matter is now irrelevant. A decision has been made; the standoff has concluded. It may not be a "perfect" system in the sense of optimal consensus building, but it is a system that acknowledges a cost—and a heavy one—for pitting husband against wife in a prolonged ideological battle. If your question is the hypothetical: Virgil, if you had instead been born a woman, would you honour your own advice? I hope I would. Scripture is clear on the matter. I adhere to scripture not only out of Christian principle and reverence for God, but because I believe he set out laws for mankind's benefit. My being a woman presumably wouldn't change that. Even with the man as the head of the household, don't ever discount the persuasive power of a loving wife. I don't know about the other men here, but Mrs. Virgil can get me to do all kinds of things I later wonder how on earth she got me to do. As an old proverb goes: "If the man is the head of the family, the wife is the neck who points him in the direction she wants him to go."
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 1, 2012 1:10:55 GMT -5
Partly because one gender had to be chosen so the system was clean, simple and definitive.
Partly because we're men. And although I acknowledge it's a big deal for women, it's a very big deal for most men. It goes to the very heart of the "respect" issue, as some of the other posters have commented.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 11:46:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 1:16:50 GMT -5
I guess I will just never understand WHY it is a very big deal for most men or why it is the very heart of the respect issue.
For me respect is also very important. I would feel VERY disrespected if my husband said that he gets to make the final decision because he is the man. I guess I am just incapable of being a good submissive wife. I have opinions and beliefs and I feel that I have the right to make final decisions just as much as he does. I don't think that is disrecpectful and I don't get how some guys feel that it is.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 1, 2012 1:58:20 GMT -5
From a secular standpoint, I can't add much to what I've already said. If you don't find the above arguments compelling, I doubt I'll change your mind on the matter.
If you value scripture, I can certainly give you a more detailed scriptural argument.
If you want a political analogy, consider that the US is in political lockdown right now because both parties (both of which can be construed to have "reasonable" arguments) "have opinions and beliefs and feel that [they] have the right to make final decisions just as much as [the other party] does", and there is no one definitive "head of household".
The result is deadlock, paralysis, hyperpartisanship, and chaos. Frankly, it's destroying the US. And it can destroy marriages just as easily.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2012 2:44:12 GMT -5
Virgil, I'm glad you came back and clarified your knowledge that that system is not optimal. Of course, that was only one of my objections to it, but it does make my response shorter. Although you quoted my post, I am assuming you did so merely as a launching point for your own, and were not speaking to me directly. But if not, I can assure you that there is nothing mindless in anything I do. I am a very bright, logical man with good decision-making skills. I can also be a dominant personality, so would do very well in your system. But that ability should imbue to me due to my ability, intelligence, and judgment, not merely due to my gender. Of course it is true that, ideally, both will act in each other's (or more precisely the marriage's) best interest. But you are putting an awful lot of (likely undeserved) faith in humanity. I could just as easily state that the vast majority of problems in marriages are because most married people are not grown up enough to actually BE married. So does having to consistently defer to an idiot. Order is fine to a degree, but at some point you do have to actually BE right. And are you really suggesting that gender is not a much more arbitrary basis on which to make a decision than intelligence, knowledge, or judgment? Forgive me for being skeptical. I would take issue with this contention. It is not only possible but almost a given that two different people, even reasonable ones, will view or value things differently. Two competing viewpoints can both be equally valid, and it does not follow that there is necessarily any unreasonableness or obstinacy going on. Very true, and well stated. But nothing there precludes her from giving up her own beliefs, or requires her to do so. I could never believe those are the only alternatives. Blindly and blithely alternating decision-making is truly moronic, and the others are again symptomatic of people who are not grown up enough to be married in the first place. Granted. But again, I would disagree with a system that leads to suboptimal results. And finally, I would wager that every single woman who believes as you do was taught to do so. Either by men, or by older women who were taught by men generations back. It is not a thought that would occur to her naturally.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2012 2:48:43 GMT -5
If you want a political analogy, consider that the US is in political lockdown right now because both parties (both of which can be construed to have "reasonable" arguments) "have opinions and beliefs and feel that [they] have the right to make final decisions just as much as [the other party] does", and there is no one definitive "head of household". The result is deadlock, paralysis, hyperpartisanship, and chaos. Frankly, it's destroying the US. And it can destroy marriages just as easily. And I would argue that most of that is the result of the moving far to the right of the conservatives, most of whom I am sure agree with your perspective on the matter, by the way. But regardless, if you truly want to destroy this country, all you have to do is give EITHER side unfettered access to power.
|
|