So what are examples of how men should be leaders more, like in the situation of a reasonably healthy family?
Most decisions require information. Be well-informed. I handle the bills and investments because I understand money and e-banking better than my wife. I handle the home and automotive maintenance because I’ve got a better grip on those things, even when it involves calling a professional (which it usually does). When we buy a car, I’ll probably do most of the research, test-driving, and negotiation. I’ll certainly ask for my wife’s input, but it will probably be me that makes the ultimate decision, unless by some miracle price becomes no concern. Basically, my wife knows that she’s much better taken care of by living with me than by living alone.
Sometimes tough situations arise. I’m not going to claim to be the greatest man-leader around, but once my wife bought a chandelier for our new house without me. I hated it. Not just becaue I didn’t pick it, mind you...I really, honestly, deeply hated it. Ugliest damn thing… I was respectful when I told her I didn’t like it, but a fight ensued anyway. I had to point out that if she puts up that chandelier, she sets the precedent that the other partner’s opinion doesn’t matter and that I could, from that point on, put up whatever I wanted. When she told me she that was afraid I wouldn’t like it even when she bought it, I pointed out (again, respectfully) that this would have gone a lot easier if she had shown it to me first. She ended up getting rid of it, and a few months later when our church replaced their chandeliers and offered the old ones for sale, we agreed to buy one. It’s the church she grew up in, so it holds some special meaning for her, and I liked the style of it, so I had no problems. The point being, when the rules of respect were violated I did actually have to put her in her place.
Why are these “man” things? This will get me picketed by NOW, but, mind you I’m speaking generally here, men are less emotional when making big decisions. When a decision is a largely emotional one, like what color to paint the living room, whose opinion wins doesn’t make any difference, unless the other truly, deeply hates it (at which point the leader needs to enforce the mutual respect clause). But the big decisions should be made with solid rationale guiding the choices and emotions guiding the preferences among those choices.
I presumed everyone would know that it wasn’t fear of knacker-knocking that stopped me ‘making my wife respect me’, but actual respect itself. But yeah, it sure was ironic that I said that.
Pointing out irony is another manly thing to do. :)
CM - 11 December 2007 04:44 PM
I still don’t understand why there is an inherent need for the XX chromosome owner to be dominant as opposed to the owner of the XY? If a compromise cannot be reached, how does the XX chromosome owner have the deciding vote?
Why should the XY have the deciding vote? Honestly, it’s not necessarily about having the deciding vote, it’s about ensuring all parties are treated fairly. That’s leadership. If an impasse is reached through an otherwise fair and respectful difference of opinion, don’t just give up your position, and don’t force yours on her. Flip a coin. We learned that from our marriage couneslor.
In our home, most of the angst-ridden decisions involve the use of my power tools, which my wife doesn’t want to use. So it behooves her to have me onboard somehow. :)
Are you not equally allowed to come to me with good arguments and facts and put your foot down? Why not? Because I have a penis?
I don’t see why I would do that, I’m not married to you from what I remember, second, I’ve been raised to respect authority and to me, men have the authority. Didn’t you say that you were loosing interest?
Ok I’ll rephrase:
Are you not equally allowed to go to frenchconnection with good arguments and facts and put your foot down? Why not? Because he has a penis?
Ah ok now we are getting down to it. Basically it comes back to exactly what I was saying - your belief system is based on patriarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
My interest in all things comes and goes.
Patriarchy describes the structuring of society on the basis of family units, in which fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of these units. IThe concept of patriarchy is often used, by extension, to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office
I guess if it’s what you mean by patriarchy, yes, my belief system is based on that. If you read well without patriarchy, there is no structure and authority means having primary responsibility for the welfare of the family, or by extension the community etc. What’s wrong with this? To me, it’s a proof of love and care! Yes I can go to Frenchconnection with good arguments and facts to try to change his mind if I think I am wrong, but at the end, he will be the one to make the decision and Iwill respect it because I believe that he makes this decision for my welfare. There are things (especially me being a foreigner) that I might not see or understand because I am from another background, another culture, so I trust him in his decision because Iknow that he loves me and wants the best for me! Does that make sense?
I still don’t understand why there is an inherent need for the XX chromosome owner to be dominant as opposed to the owner of the XY? If a compromise cannot be reached, how does the XX chromosome owner have the deciding vote?
Why are these “man” things? This will get me picketed by NOW, but, mind you I’m speaking generally here, men are less emotional when making big decisions. When a decision is a largely emotional one, like what color to paint the living room, whose opinion wins doesn’t make any difference, unless the other truly, deeply hates it (at which point the leader needs to enforce the mutual respect clause). But the big decisions should be made with solid rationale guiding the choices and emotions guiding the preferences among those choices.
I
I completely agree with what you’re saying, men are more rational, we women go nuts about nothing. On the other side, Frenchconnection is really bad with money and has no bank account because of his ex-wife. All of his paycheck goes directly in my account but he is still in control when it comes to spend the money!
So what are examples of how men should be leaders more, like in the situation of a reasonably healthy family?
Most decisions require information. Be well-informed. I handle the bills and investments because I understand money and e-banking better than my wife. I handle the home and automotive maintenance because I’ve got a better grip on those things, even when it involves calling a professional (which it usually does). When we buy a car, I’ll probably do most of the research, test-driving, and negotiation. I’ll certainly ask for my wife’s input, but it will probably be me that makes the ultimate decision, unless by some miracle price becomes no concern. Basically, my wife knows that she’s much better taken care of by living with me than by living alone.
Sometimes tough situations arise. I’m not going to claim to be the greatest man-leader around, but once my wife bought a chandelier for our new house without me. I hated it. Not just becaue I didn’t pick it, mind you...I really, honestly, deeply hated it. Ugliest damn thing… I was respectful when I told her I didn’t like it, but a fight ensued anyway. I had to point out that if she puts up that chandelier, she sets the precedent that the other partner’s opinion doesn’t matter and that I could, from that point on, put up whatever I wanted. When she told me she that was afraid I wouldn’t like it even when she bought it, I pointed out (again, respectfully) that this would have gone a lot easier if she had shown it to me first. She ended up getting rid of it, and a few months later when our church replaced their chandeliers and offered the old ones for sale, we agreed to buy one. It’s the church she grew up in, so it holds some special meaning for her, and I liked the style of it, so I had no problems. The point being, when the rules of respect were violated I did actually have to put her in her place.
Why are these “man” things? This will get me picketed by NOW, but, mind you I’m speaking generally here, men are less emotional when making big decisions. When a decision is a largely emotional one, like what color to paint the living room, whose opinion wins doesn’t make any difference, unless the other truly, deeply hates it (at which point the leader needs to enforce the mutual respect clause). But the big decisions should be made with solid rationale guiding the choices and emotions guiding the preferences among those choices.
I presumed everyone would know that it wasn’t fear of knacker-knocking that stopped me ‘making my wife respect me’, but actual respect itself. But yeah, it sure was ironic that I said that.
Pointing out irony is another manly thing to do. :)
CM - 11 December 2007 04:44 PM
I still don’t understand why there is an inherent need for the XX chromosome owner to be dominant as opposed to the owner of the XY? If a compromise cannot be reached, how does the XX chromosome owner have the deciding vote?
Why should the XY have the deciding vote? Honestly, it’s not necessarily about having the deciding vote, it’s about ensuring all parties are treated fairly. That’s leadership. If an impasse is reached through an otherwise fair and respectful difference of opinion, don’t just give up your position, and don’t force yours on her. Flip a coin. We learned that from our marriage couneslor.
In our home, most of the angst-ridden decisions involve the use of my power tools, which my wife doesn’t want to use. So it behooves her to have me onboard somehow. :)
This is pretty much all in line with what I’ve said. There is no inherent assumption that you ‘know best’ because of your chromosomes, but in certain situations you actually do know best because you have the information and/or experience. That’s not patriarchy, it’s simply utilising the person who has the particular strength in the relevant field. Your example of the chandelier isn’t gender related, it could equally have happening the other way around, and presumably the same ultimatim and result would have occurred. There is simply no reason why it would have been any different. Both of you possess the ability to express desires with respect to taste, and neither’s taste is superior to the other. The situation was dealt with in an intelligent way and is probably a good example of why the need to rely on chromosomes is not a valid argument. That’s not to say that some couples prefer to fall back on that, which is what Fifi is saying works for her. I just don’t see why or how she assumes that her preference to rely on that would work for anyone else.
You didn’t ‘put her in her place’ in the way that Fifi means it. You simply explained the ramifications of her deciding that the chandelier would stay, and she understood. Again, it could equally have happened the other way around. Would that mean that she had put you ‘in your place’?
Yes, good point about most decisions ultimately being made by the one that is most upset about one of the outcomes. I’m not convinced about women being more emotional than men. I think men probably deal with the emotion in a different way (e.g. they bottle it up), but the emotion is likely to still be there. Of course I’m talking about situations where the man cares. If both partners care equally about the colour of a room, it may be that the woman gets her way because she expresses her emotion instantly and the man doesn’t and ends up accepting the colour because the emotion of the women has manifested itself has effectively won the argument. However, as the man cares equally about the colour, but his emotion doesn’t manifest itself in the same immediate way, then it doesn’t mean he is less emotional.
Why should the XY have the deciding vote? Honestly, it’s not necessarily about having the deciding vote, it’s about ensuring all parties are treated fairly. That’s leadership. If an impasse is reached through an otherwise fair and respectful difference of opinion, don’t just give up your position, and don’t force yours on her. Flip a coin. We learned that from our marriage couneslor.
When making a big decision in a marriage/partnership, I don’t believe that ‘leadership’ is relevant. It’s about communication, the willingness to listen and understand the other view, and then either compromise or acceptance that one of you is going to get their way on the particular issue.
Patriarchy describes the structuring of society on the basis of family units, in which fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of these units. IThe concept of patriarchy is often used, by extension, to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office
I guess if it’s what you mean by patriarchy, yes, my belief system is based on that. If you read well without patriarchy, there is no structure and authority means having primary responsibility for the welfare of the family, or by extension the community etc. What’s wrong with this? To me, it’s a proof of love and care! Yes I can go to Frenchconnection with good arguments and facts to try to change his mind if I think I am wrong, but at the end, he will be the one to make the decision and Iwill respect it because I believe that he makes this decision for my welfare. There are things (especially me being a foreigner) that I might not see or understand because I am from another background, another culture, so I trust him in his decision because Iknow that he loves me and wants the best for me! Does that make sense?
No, not really. You trusting him because he’s American makes sense. But, as to welfare, that suggests that if you made the decisions you wouldn’t equally look out for his.
But I do understand what your position is anyway, even if I don’t understand or agree with the justification for it.
And, as I said, if it works for you guys and nobody is harmed then it’s completely your business and good on you both for finding something that works. I’m just saying don’t assume that it works that way for other couples.
I still don’t understand why there is an inherent need for the XX chromosome owner to be dominant as opposed to the owner of the XY? If a compromise cannot be reached, how does the XX chromosome owner have the deciding vote?
From the very article you linked: *grin*
;)
Sluts the both of them - she’s clearly ‘askin’ for it’.
Why are these “man” things? This will get me picketed by NOW, but, mind you I’m speaking generally here, men are less emotional when making big decisions. When a decision is a largely emotional one, like what color to paint the living room, whose opinion wins doesn’t make any difference, unless the other truly, deeply hates it (at which point the leader needs to enforce the mutual respect clause). But the big decisions should be made with solid rationale guiding the choices and emotions guiding the preferences among those choices.!
I completely agree with what you’re saying, men are more rational, we women go nuts about nothing. On the other side, Frenchconnection is really bad with money and has no bank account because of his ex-wife. All of his paycheck goes directly in my account but he is still in control when it comes to spend the money!
I’m not convinced about women being more emotional than men. I think men probably deal with the emotion in a different way (e.g. they bottle it up), but the emotion is likely to still be there.
I think we’re talking about the same thing but putting different values on emotional input. What I call being more rational, you call “bottling up” emotions. Some decisions really need more weight applied to the rational component, and I really do believe that, generally, men are better at moving the weight in that direction than women. I’ll admit that it’s more of an axiom than a proven statement, but I suspect I’d find more agreement about it than you would against it. It’s fine that you don’t accept that axiom, but we’re probably not going to convince each other of anything without putting it to the test.
CM - 11 December 2007 06:29 PM
...The situation was dealt with in an intelligent way and is probably a good example of why the need to rely on chromosomes is not a valid argument.
Again, this goes back to the axiom above. If you don’t accept that, then you have to believe what you said. But my experience leads me to accept that axiom. Believe me, in college I was a pretty strong feminist, possibly because that’s the only way to pick up the few chicks that at a geek school (the last part there also reinforces the axiom for me).
You didn’t ‘put her in her place’ in the way that Fifi means it. You simply explained the ramifications of her deciding that the chandelier would stay, and she understood. Again, it could equally have happened the other way around.
You’ll have to trust me on this: no, it couldn’t have.
Yes, good point about most decisions ultimately being made by the one that is most upset about one of the outcomes. I’m not convinced about women being more emotional than men. I think men probably deal with the emotion in a different way (e.g. they bottle it up), but the emotion is likely to still be there. Of course I’m talking about situations where the man cares. If both partners care equally about the colour of a room, it may be that the woman gets her way because she expresses her emotion instantly and the man doesn’t and ends up accepting the colour because the emotion of the women has manifested itself has effectively won the argument. However, as the man cares equally about the colour, but his emotion doesn’t manifest itself in the same immediate way, then it doesn’t mean he is less emotional.
Actually, I’ve had my input respected on every wall painted in our house. Never on the timing, but that’s another issue. When I agree on the color and she’s willing to do all the work, I really can’t complain. I win twice!
Why should the XY have the deciding vote? Honestly, it’s not necessarily about having the deciding vote, it’s about ensuring all parties are treated fairly. That’s leadership. If an impasse is reached through an otherwise fair and respectful difference of opinion, don’t just give up your position, and don’t force yours on her. Flip a coin. We learned that from our marriage couneslor.
When making a big decision in a marriage/partnership, I don’t believe that ‘leadership’ is relevant. It’s about communication, the willingness to listen and understand the other view, and then either compromise or acceptance that one of you is going to get their way on the particular issue.
If everyone were a perfect listener, compromiser, and accepter, you’d be perfectly correct. But when the communication goes sour, who calms things down? Sometimes both sides get so hard-headed that someone has to realize that no decision is going to be made properly and that it should be deferred for a while. It actually does take leadership to calm down, calm the other down, and either sort out the communication or defer the decision for a few hours or days, depending on the urgency.
