The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by dacvspecial

 

IF I had a wife and kids,I would do what I had to do to ensure my wife and kids survive, but I want to survive WITH them. If that means I gotta steal food from you your wife and your kids, or throw you into davy jones locker, so be it. But I don't have them, so my priority is numero uno. Yes, maybe that makes me selfish, a coward, whatever.... sorry but I'm a survivor, I'm going to do what it takes in a true SHTF situation.

This kind of attitude is all over the survival threads, and its not even close to cutting survival. Long term communities would weed out any families that did this.

We might live in a world that has opposite values because of the monied groups that run it, but not in grass roots groups, in those groups cooperation is the norm.

I agree with what your saying. But we aren't talking about grassroots groups, we are talking about a catastrophic event that means that some in the group have to willingly die. In a small tight knit "tribe" if you wanna call it that, everyone (men,women and children) are a part of it and are all working together for survival. There is a cohesive element that keeps everyone working together.

In this situation, it's basically a free for all and some people are saying that since women and children are weaker(which isn't always true i know some brute women ), they should be given a free pass while the men should passively accept death because it's the honorable thing to do.

Also, the world we live in is littered with people anyways, plenty of women around, we aren't going to die off anytime soon. I don't see how me passively giving my life up for a woman or a child other than my own family is for the greater good of humanity. If it was a situation where very few people were left, you still need men as well as women so I am of the opinion of "only the strong survive" in a situation like this. Strong and intelligent men, strong and intelligent women, mentally and physically..... should be the only ones who make it. No gimmes

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

The rule is most definitely NOT based on nature. In times of famine wolves and lions will allow their cubs to starve before they do. The adult pair can produce more young but should the adult pair sacrifice themselves the cubs they leave behind serve only as someone else's dinner and the line ends.
Nature puts parents before children.
Also, while it is natural for many creatures to fight, and possibly die in defense of their young, nature rarely shows an animal sacrificing itself for someone else's cub.

Originally posted by dacvspecial

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by dacvspecial

 

IF I had a wife and kids,I would do what I had to do to ensure my wife and kids survive, but I want to survive WITH them. If that means I gotta steal food from you your wife and your kids, or throw you into davy jones locker, so be it. But I don't have them, so my priority is numero uno. Yes, maybe that makes me selfish, a coward, whatever.... sorry but I'm a survivor, I'm going to do what it takes in a true SHTF situation.

This kind of attitude is all over the survival threads, and its not even close to cutting survival. Long term communities would weed out any families that did this.

We might live in a world that has opposite values because of the monied groups that run it, but not in grass roots groups, in those groups cooperation is the norm.

I agree with what your saying. But we aren't talking about grassroots groups, we are talking about a catastrophic event that means that some in the group have to willingly die. In a small tight knit "tribe" if you wanna call it that, everyone (men,women and children) are a part of it and are all working together for survival. There is a cohesive element that keeps everyone working together.

In this situation, it's basically a free for all and some people are saying that since women and children are weaker(which isn't always true i know some brute women

), they should be given a free pass while the men should passively accept death because it's the honorable thing to do.

Also, the world we live in is littered with people anyways, plenty of women around, we aren't going to die off anytime soon. I don't see how me passively giving my life up for a woman or a child other than my own family is for the greater good of humanity. If it was a situation where very few people were left, you still need men as well as women so I am of the opinion of "only the strong survive" in a situation like this. Strong and intelligent men, strong and intelligent women, mentally and physically..... should be the only ones who make it. No gimmes

again you dont get it, there will never be a sudden catastrophic event. things like global warming will kill people off in small fragments over a period of 10 or 15 years this is how billions will die and the earths population will decline before we can reproduce and replenish it. and suddenly many will wake up and say, ''we've been the cause of our destruction all along, all these disasters, this is what we've achieved'' but it'll be too late for that.

Originally posted by Puck 22
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

The rule is most definitely NOT based on nature. In times of famine wolves and lions will allow their cubs to starve before they do. The adult pair can produce more young but should the adult pair sacrifice themselves the cubs they leave behind serve only as someone else's dinner and the line ends.
Nature puts parents before children.
Also, while it is natural for many creatures to fight, and possibly die in defense of their young, nature rarely shows an animal sacrificing itself for someone else's cub.

but what about elephants or apes. intlleigent animals will protect others children as well but of the same species obviously and this has been observed many times in apes, and even in cases of elephants. so what you say is that we throw away compasion for our race and look at each person like a different species ?? you fail to understand that the reason we evolved here today and survived as a species was the development of ''feelings''

homo erectus (our ancestor species) also showed feelings without which they would never have evolved,

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
Most definitely

Excellent ! And if you're already married, then polygamy is always an option.

Seriously though, I'm glad that women like you can see the destructive and anti-female reality of the pervasive, bile-ridden feminist agenda. As a man, when I put across similar points as you have done, I get labelled as a ''misogynist'' by the femipigs.

A real woman is independent, intelligent, free-thinking, and unashamedly feminine. Sadly, society is littered with a couple of generations of gender-card carrying, feminist-indoctrinated, brainless drones, whose main aspiration is to try and emulate men and ''prove'' that they are ''as good as them''.

Feminism encourages the masculinising of women, and helps to develop inferiority complexes and self-esteem and self-worth problems in otherwise healthy women.

Women should embrace their femininity, not reject it !

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
Most definitely

Excellent ! And if you're already married, then polygamy is always an option.

Seriously though, I'm glad that women like you can see the destructive and anti-female reality of the pervasive, bile-ridden feminist agenda. As a man, when I put across similar points as you have done, I get labelled as a ''misogynist'' by the femipigs.

A real woman is independent, intelligent, free-thinking, and unashamedly feminine. Sadly, society is littered with a couple of generations of gender-card carrying, feminist-indoctrinated, brainless drones, whose main aspiration is to try and emulate men and ''prove'' that they are ''as good as them''.

Feminism encourages the masculinising of women, and helps to develop inferiority complexes and self-esteem and self-worth problems in otherwise healthy women.

Women should embrace their femininity, not reject it !

well said !! equality does not mean that women HAVE to prove that they can do whatever men can, because we know they can do it better. a man maybe strong but a woman is smarter and should do things just if she wants to not because she has to prove something. its already proven that women are better at certain things so they should not be let down by some men who only try to lower self esteem. after all Behind every successful man is a woman

now that the equality thing is settled let me add that men being nicer to women and willing to die for them is a huge extra added bonus. but, not all men are nice so learning karate is a must.

reply to post by dacvspecial


In that kind of event, everyone should ensure everyone survives, but even then, like in the Titanic, there isn't just a dog eat dog mentality, there is a crowd ethics and however it was being down, most likely wealthy children first, with military types tagging on as well, they would be throwing anyone that stepped out of line overboard.

You wouldn't really get a choice in it.

We need to do things in other ways, cooperating and solving things together ahead of time, because the most common kinds of disasters are Chili Quake, Japan Tsunami and Quake, and the various earth changes that are coming.

Wow this thread has taken some interesting twists and turns.

Honestly no one can really say how they would react in a crisis situation, unless you've actually been there, in the same scenario, I don't think anyone could really say what they would do. You may like to think this is what I would do, this is how I would act. But in a crisis situation there are too many variables, what if all the women on the boat are convicted child molesters, would you want them to get a seat? What if it was an adult only singles cruise, who goes first? What if it was an adult only singles male cruise? What if if it was a boat of convicted serial killers?

Silly scenarios, I know but the point I'm trying to make is as much as some would like to believe they would be gallant (yeah for old fashion values) or cutthroat (there is need for people who can make the hard decisions) no one really knows until they live it how they would respond.

I've seen the roughest toughest strongest men turn into little heaps of goo over the loss of a beloved pet. And
I've seen the quietest, smallest, gentlest meekest women turn into a UFC fighter if her children or family (including pets) are threatened.

I would like to believe that I would do what was best, but I can't say for sure

Unless it was a boat of Canadians then no one would survive because we would all be so busy being polite to each other the boat would sink

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Originally posted by HarmonicNights

Excellent ! And if you're already married, then polygamy is always an option.

I'm 19 and not yet married.

A real woman is independent, intelligent, free-thinking, and unashamedly feminine. Sadly, society is littered with a couple of generations of gender-card carrying, feminist-indoctrinated, brainless drones, whose main aspiration is to try and emulate men and ''prove'' that they are ''as good as them''.

Exactly. If feminists were really confident and secure in their womanhood, they would see no need to constantly try to prove themselves.

Feminism encourages the masculinising of women, and helps to develop inferiority complexes and self-esteem and self-worth problems in otherwise healthy women.

Women should embrace their femininity, not reject it !

Very true. Feminism is very harmful to females and society as a whole. The good news is that it seems most young women these days don't label themselves as feminists and some even scoff at it. The bad news is, like it or not, feminism has left a lasting legacy that has been deeply ingrained into our society and way of life. A lot of women who wish to stay at home with their children are forced to work as one income isn't enough. The family courts favor women and subsidize the break up of families. I think this breakdown was all orchestrated.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Ok Sherlock- you get off the boat first. While you're at it - why don't you just toss the little kiddies overboard or hell, slice their throats first so the sounds of their screams won't haunt your nights.

Well, a lot to say on the matter, I see. My final take on it is this: I have had a good life, fathered 4 children, all adults now. I have been on this planet for half a century. I am content with what I have done in my time.

If my death means that others can continue and have the ride I have had on this world, I would die a happy man.
It is my life to give and I choose to give it savind someone, rather than in my sleep (a meaningless death). We all die, there is no escape, why not die so that other life may continue?

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
Well, a lot to say on the matter, I see. My final take on it is this: I have had a good life, fathered 4 children, all adults now. I have been on this planet for half a century. I am content with what I have done in my time.

If my death means that others can continue and have the ride I have had on this world, I would die a happy man.
It is my life to give and I choose to give it savind someone, rather than in my sleep (a meaningless death). We all die, there is no escape, why not die so that other life may continue?

Ahh, a man after my own heart, a life, lived well, is the only life worth giving. And to paraphrase that great brave boy, to die must be an awfully big adventure. What else is the point? But, to live well, and to die well.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
A traditional marriage is a kind of mutual exchange- the man provides income for the family while the woman provides household duties such as cooking and cleaning. They're complementary roles. Raising your children is THE most significant duty in life- not just for the children, but for society as a whole. Nurturing, disciplining, and shaping the minds of the FUTURE is not something that can be written off as meaningless and insignificant.

As a member of ATS, and as someone who is aware of the world around me, the great inequity that exists between peoples, and the great unyeilding poverty suffered by some nations, I cannot help but think that society has enough children to care for already, and we are failing millions of those. We procreate through choice in the west. If you choose to procreate, then yes, you should ensure that you raise an individual that will serve the needs of society and is equipped to face the challenges that this society presents as it continues to change. I do not think though that choosing to have children elevates someone's value to society and value equally, those men and women who chose not to procreate.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
The fact that you feel you need a career in order to feel your intellect is somehow being fed only speaks of your insecurity.

You seem to think that because of your limited world view and narrowness of mind which permits you only to speak from the 'Me' perspective, that I suffer from the same affliction. I do not have a career. I have a physically demanding job that fits in around school hours, it keeps me fit and strong, pays the bills, but keeps my mind my own. I am, in all other ways, a full-time Mum. And very happily so. It is all I ever wanted to be as a parent and although I work part-time, I am still able to be there 24/7 for my child. I am, partly through choice, mostly from necessity, on my own with my child. I am both parents rolled into one, chief, cook and bottle washer, provider and bread winner. I receive little or no support from my child's father, financial or otherwise. I may, once my child has grown and left home, pursue a more mentally demanding 'career', but for the time being parenting and educating my child, running a home on a tight budget, provide sufficient challenges.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
The need to have a career in order to feel adequate and experience "personal growth and development" is saddening to say the least.

Again, I am not limited to the span of my own experience and recognise that my choices are my choices. I, as a parent, for example would question why anyone would not wish to attend to their personal growth and development. What use is a mother that is incapable of educating her children due to a limited understanding of the world? What interest would a husband of any intellect have in the companionship of a wife of such limited conversation as that that pertains only to the domestic arrangements of the house?

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
I'm not sure how you can experience "physical stimulation" by sitting in an office, which is what most career women end up doing.

Is that so? Do you know many 'career women'? I think that you will find that a fair number of 'career men' sit in offices too. Haha. They're the useless ones in a emergency that I spoke of earlier...some of them, but trust me, I have seen the utter feebleness in action. Should I pretend to be more enfeebled so that they can feel all manly do you think? I generally find, that such men, are in fact, more self assured than that, and would not respect me if I did. They know that they have other skills and abilities, and are happy to stand aside and let me demonstrate mine.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
It's men do all the back-breaking physical jobs.

Men are better suited to hard work, if they are practiced in it, we all need to break our bodies into any new physical activity. I know of many a man who has never done a hard days work in his life and would be as hard pressed to do so as you probably would. If a woman wants to do a 'back breaking' job, then with very few exceptions, given the level of automation in most industries, then there is no reason why she cannot work to the same level of production as her male counterparts.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
I think you know as well as I do that most feminists only seek to work in order to earn money.

Why shouldn't a woman pursue economic gain? Does having a vagina preclude you from greed? Certainly, many, many women have married for money, so the precedent for feminine greed is clearly set. Is it just that you are proposing that women should not engage in any business other than the exchange of sexual favours in order to gain money?

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
They can't get enough of it. I'm sure if they could be paid to stay at home, they would do it in a heartbeat. Traditional marriage is not in any way a form of slavery and it's a slap in the face to actual slaves to spout out such an insult. Feminists are slaves to the almighty dollar. Money is everything to them and they can't find fullfillment in life without it.

Who are you talking about? They seem to have raised your spite though, why do you resent them? Or is that something you've picked up from your Mother? Or Father probably, little girls, are traditionally, taught first how to please Daddy. Do you still go to your Daddy for money? Or are you able to support yourself financially yet?

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
I'm not irrational enough to become a stingy, man-hating feminist just because of a few bad experiences (or even ALL bad experiences) with men. If you don't want to get married, then don't. But don't try to demonize the entire institution of marriage and develop an irrational disdain for it as well as men.

I have the greatest respect for those who choose to marry and work at that relationship. I love men, much to my own detriment at times, but for this period in my life, I am fully contented to be a mother. You on the other hand are a child and have no idea what experiences life is going to bring you. I hope that they are all good, but I also hope that you learn good grace and fortitude in time, in case life chooses to challenge you.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
The law has never been perfect and the rape within marriage issue is one of those oddities that arose. There's not some conspiracy against women.

Just because you may have suffered at the hands of men doesn't mean you should irrationally view all men as abusers or predators. That's no reason to ignore the majority of men who are good.

You would be wise to educate yourself as to the history of the women's rights movement before you speak from such a position of ignorance. You embarass yourself and show great disrespect for the suffering and sacrifices of those infinitely better than you. Rights earned by others, can soon be taken away, if successive generations do not fight to uphold those rights. You are a child for as long as you choose to behave like one.

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
It was a general statement. And it's a fact. hon. Men naturally have more physical strength than women. Women sometimes build up their strength to match men's. I can't even understand why this biological difference would bother some women. Obviously it's because of insecurity issues.

I understand biological difference. I have the reproductive organs of the female of the species, I have in fact given birth, so I'd say on a 1 to 10 scale of understanding, I'm kind of a 10. So, hon, if you want to believe, or lead men to believe that, by gender, you are physically weaker than all men, then please feel free to do so, but don't expect the women to pander to you as well. Just because you want a man to take care of you, some of us enjoy the independence of taking care of ourselves and find that that doesn't make us any less feminine, or any less attractive, to equally intelligent and independent minded men. I have nothing to prove, my life, so far, and experience speaks for itself. I am very contented that I am being the very best that I can be. That is very attractive to all kinds of people believe me. I choose abstinence so that I can better focus on parenting. but I spend a fair about of time graciously declining offers.

You shouldn't be so judgemental, you have a lot to learn, and strength isn't so much about what you bear but how you bear the burden.

reply to post by BadPenny

True words my friend. As a Mason and not Christian, I believe that death is not end end, just the continuation of the great adventure.

Originally posted by BadPenny

So, hon, if you want to believe, or lead men to believe that, by gender, you are physically weaker than all men, then please feel free to do so, but don't expect the women to pander to you as well. Just because you want a man to take care of you, some of us enjoy the independence of taking care of ourselves and find that that doesn't make us any less feminine, or any less attractive, to equally intelligent and independent minded men. I have nothing to prove, my life, so far, and experience speaks for itself. I am very contented that I am being the very best that I can be. That is very attractive to all kinds of people believe me.

You shouldn't be so judgemental, you have a lot to learn, and strength isn't so much about what you bear but how you bear the burden.

edit on 4-5-2011 by BadPenny because: (no reason given)

Bravo Bad Penny Well said. Except for the giving birth and parenting parts I agree with you 100%. (I have not given birth or been a parent - by choice)

HarmonicNight. - at 19 you still have alot of living to do, I hope you continue to keep an open mind and to learn from different viewpoints and different life values. Good Luck

Originally posted by BadPenny

As a member of ATS, and as someone who is aware of the world around me, the great inequity that exists between peoples, and the great unyeilding poverty suffered by some nations, I cannot help but think that society has enough children to care for already, and we are failing millions of those. We procreate through choice in the west. If you choose to procreate, then yes, you should ensure that you raise an individual that will serve the needs of society and is equipped to face the challenges that this society presents as it continues to change. I do not think though that choosing to have children elevates someone's value to society and value equally, those men and women who chose not to procreate.

Our society is in desperate need of parents who will actually RAISE their children. Such parents are an immense value to society and an entire generation raised by these parents would be a great improvement. Having such a self-indulgent culture with people who choose not to have children all because they don't want to take on responsibility is only suicide for our culture, all the while being replaced by less civilized cultures. A culture that doesn't value family is doomed.

You seem to think that because of your limited world view and narrowness of mind which permits you only to speak from the 'Me' perspective, that I suffer from the same affliction.

There should be a drinking game for every time you use that illogical talking point. YOU and most other feminists are the simple-minded ones who base all your purely emotionally-driven views on your own negative experiences and insecurities. They go through life with a chip on their shoulder and a "poor me" attitude.

I am both parents rolled into one, chief, cook and bottle washer, provider and bread winner. I receive little or no support from my child's father, financial or otherwise.

No one person can provide the experience of having both parents. Intentionally depriving your children of a father or mother is not in any way an accomplishment. I'm not trying to make a judgement of your situation as I have no idea of what your situation actually is, I'm just describing certain people who I've witnessed do this.

I, as a parent, for example would question why anyone would not wish to attend to their personal growth and development. What use is a mother that is incapable of educating her children due to a limited understanding of the world?

What's funny is you're equating having a career to having an understanding of the world. To you, a career is the Holy Grail. It's strange to say the least. You're insecure about your own intellect. Education is not the only thing children need. That's why we send children to school.

What interest would a husband of any intellect have in the companionship of a wife of such limited conversation as that that pertains only to the domestic arrangements of the house?

Are you serious? I can't believe what I just read...I'm positive you're indoctrinated now. You've been brainwashed to believe the only path to having any sort of intellect and worth is by getting a college education and a career. Your mindset is right where TPTB want it to be. So people are just blank slates before earning a career in their life? I'm currently in college and it's such a joke. College is just a scam to suck people dry of their money. Colleges are indoctrination machines and the fact that anyone would feel the need to attend one in order to feel intelligent is laughable. I feel more intellectually stimulated by just doing research and reading books in my own time. Guess what? Housewives are not and have never been anti-intelllectual. You're telling me you feel you can't feed your own intellect in your own time? You must have professors who you feel intellectually inferior to lecturing at you?

Is that so? Do you know many 'career women'? I think that you will find that a fair number of 'career men' sit in offices too.

It's mainly men who do all the physical, dangerous jobs- construction, policing, firefighters, etc. I don't understand your point about women needing "physical simulation" when what they mostly do is office jobs.

Men are better suited to hard work

You admit this, but get angry at the mention of men being generally physically stronger? No one said women can't work the same jobs if they wish to do so. You're the only one who has mentioned such a thing.

Why shouldn't a woman pursue economic gain? Does having a vagina preclude you from greed? Certainly, many, many women have married for money, so the precedent for feminine greed is clearly set. Is it just that you are proposing that women should not engage in any business other than the exchange of sexual favours in order to gain money?

Family is more important than being able to indulge in all sorts of unnecessary luxuries. Greed is a weakness. That's the problem with the feminist mindset. To them, the only aspects of a male/female relationship is money, sex, and power. They know nothing of love, commitment, self-sacrifice, discipline, and family. I'm not sure what your intention is by suggesting that I'm somehow encouraging prostitution. Feminists are the ones who support the idea of women working in the sex industry.

Who are you talking about? They seem to have raised your spite though, why do you resent them?

Greed is one of the things I hate most, while family is something very dear to me. I think you can figure this one out.

Or is that something you've picked up from your Mother? Or Father probably, little girls, are traditionally, taught first how to please Daddy. Do you still go to your Daddy for money? Or are you able to support yourself financially yet?

You're just yet another example of the bitter feminist who goes through life full of anger and paranoia. Don't let your past experiences cloud your ability to think rationally and hold you back in life. I was raised in a household where the biggest things that were shunned were greed and materialism. I don't worship money. It's very clear that your frequent bantering of "you have a narrow view of the world" is only a projection of what's inside your own self. To you, the male is some scary boogeyman who is out to get you and all other females. It'd be in the best interest for YOU if you let go of this irrational fear and get rid of any childish grudge you hold against all males because of your own personal experiences.

You on the other hand are a child and have no idea what experiences life is going to bring you. I hope that they are all good, but I also hope that you learn good grace and fortitude in time, in case life chooses to challenge you.

I'm not a child. And you are basically admitting that you've formed opinions based on your own negative experiences, all the while you accuse me of forming opinions based on my positive experiences. I will never inherit the bitter feminist attitude no matter what any man does to me. I'm not an irrational person who uses emotions to form views.

You are a child for as long as you choose to behave like one.

You should take your own advice.

So, hon, if you want to believe, or lead men to believe that, by gender, you are physically weaker than all men, then please feel free to do so, but don't expect the women to pander to you as well

Some more advice- work on improving your reading comprehension skills. I stated more than once that women in general are physically weaker than men. Do you not understand what a general statement is?

Just because you want a man to take care of you, some of us enjoy the independence of taking care of ourselves

Another thing feminists do is switch back and forth between the talking points of "housewives slave away taking care of their husbands" to "housewives need a man to take care of them". Which is it?

]

Originally posted by Iseladore

HarmonicNight. - at 19 you still have alot of living to do, I hope you continue to keep an open mind and to learn from different viewpoints and different life values. Good Luck

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to play the age card. I don't and never will support the method of forming viewpoints purely based on emotional reaction or indoctrination.

Originally posted by BadPenny

why do you say women have to prove that they are stronger. would you rather work in mines ??im a man and im not saying women are weaker, infact from my experience they are smarter too. and i believe that women are much better then men at many things. if a man is nicer to a woman then its his will. the thing is that when we are nice we get blamed when some men are bad we get blamed cause of these some men. i really don't see why this has to be an equality issue.

It's a simple question mostly aimed for men, ''The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?'' my take is that well a man should help a woman or child even if it means risking his life even though he does not know them.

if a woman goes to work then i will surely not object but infact i will do all i can to help out.

i don't consider women as inferior and i have seen many families where women play head roles. just because a husband works and earns doesn't make him a head, women don't have to work to prove that they are heads of the family, work should be about doing a job that you like or that is closely similar to your ambition. all the politics nowadays is the problem and people are becoming slaves of money. no one cares about anyone anymore and love is just a gimmic, its like a casual thing, it doesn't mean much in todays world. i don't think a womans role is in the kitchen or raising children and i will certainly not force her to do that, infact a husband is equally important in raising children and helping around the house.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Are you serious?
Actually if you need to know, I worked my a$$ off for years alone when my first husband left my young daughter and I for another woman. I learned the hard way what kind of man I really wanted.

And now I am a stay at home mom with 2 kids..one homeschooled highschooler and the other starting homeschool kindergarten this year. My husband works and I make the house perfect for him. I do ALL and I mean ALL of the housework, the cooking, the shopping, etc. He provides the house, I do the rest of the magic. I write out, plan, and make nutritious meals the entire week (we eat out Saturday), I fix his lunch for him as well to take to work. He works as a scientist and also teaches courses at the local university. I am busy from sunrise to past sunset. I think this balance is what many couples desire but have no idea how to acheive. There is not one single night he comes home and dinner is late and I cook REAL food (not pop a microwave lasagna in and throw it on a plate..) Afterwards he relaxes and spends a little time with his son.
I spent many years trying to find a man that would let me be a woman. It sounds simple enough, but it is very complicated these days. I ended up with a Middle Eastern, oddly enough. Yeah I get the "He must beat you" kinds of replies on threads like this which makes me really sad. (The fact is , if he ever laid a hand on me, he would be the hurting one..lol) But he grew up with his mom at home and his dad working to provide so it was natural for him that we would do the same. In return, I feel protected by him. I know he is providing for us what we need and I never worry about my safety when we are out..he is a strong manly guy and looks intimidating. Isn't that nature? Look to the animals and the females choose the strongest males to father their children. Women don't want a man that acts like a woman and men don't want a woman that acts like a man.

Originally posted by TiberianPurifier

Originally posted by BadPenny

why do you say women have to prove that they are stronger. would you rather work in mines ??im a man and im not saying women are weaker, infact from my experience they are smarter too. and i believe that women are much better then men at many things. if a man is nicer to a woman then its his will. the thing is that when we are nice we get blamed when some men are bad we get blamed cause of these some men. i really don't see why this has to be an equality issue.

I didn't say that women had to prove that they were stronger than men, I didn't in fact say that women were stronger than men at any point, despite criticism of my reading skills, it appears as though I am not the one having difficulty understanding here. All I have said is that some women are stronger than some men. I don't believe that anyone should have to prove themselves for the sake of being valued by others, I simply believe everyone should be allowed the choice to be whatever they are capable of being regardless of gender, class, race or any other distinction that you can imagine.

Originally posted by TiberianPurifier
It's a simple question mostly aimed for men, ''The ''Women and Children'' First Rule - What's Your Take on That?'' my take is that well a man should help a woman or child even if it means risking his life even though he does not know them.

As another poster has already pointed out, the term is a modern appellation. If you look at the statistics of those who survived the Titanic, more women than children survived, why do you think that is? Surely, in terms of weakness, then children would go first, or is it, that some children were more capable than others and therefore not deemed as weak? Class, especially at that time, plays a huge role in the 'women and children first' rule. Women of the wealthy classes, were usually, from a young age kept indoors and allowed very little physical freedom. Similarly, so were boys up until the age of seven. Women, and children, were therefore, through lack of proper exercise and exposure to fresh air, quite ill disposed to any form of arduous tasks. In any dangerous situation, it is advisable to first evacuate those who cannot help or need help. The majority of the women on board the ship who died, I should imagine, were of the working classes, and were therefore, up until the end doing what they had done all their lives, and working beside the men.

If a man wishes to risk his life for me, I should hope that he would not be too ashamed to accept that I feel for him a similar devotion.