• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

Men: Would you marry an American Woman?


  • Total voters
    83
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Where do I make any such reference? You're aware that Paganism wasn't regionally exclusive, right? And that the Church had designs on foreign influence? I mean, is Europe in the ME? Is the Vatican located in Israel?

Stop deflecting, Eco. Where's the proof that Paul was protecting anything?

In other words, you have no basis whatsoever to claim that the women of the early church were behaving differently than every other woman of the time. That is, shutting the **** up.

Thus, we have evidence that there must have been another purpose to Paul's advice.

That he was writing to a church in the most persecuted region of the time gives indication of his purpose - the survival of the church.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Let me know when that happens.
I've heard/seen various persons argue that it already has. Not sure myself. And I sure as hell don't recall the arguments in any detail.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I've heard/seen various persons argue that it already has. Not sure myself. And I sure as hell don't recall the arguments in any detail.

Unless you can give me an example, I think your concern is unfounded.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Unless you can give me an example, I think your concern is unfounded.
I consider a concern founded if it's even vaguely possible, however unlikely. Granted not very well founded.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I consider a concern founded if it's even vaguely possible, however unlikely. Granted not very well founded.

As I cannot prove a negative, it is upon the claim to garner credibility. Thus far, there is none - not even one example.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

As I cannot prove a negative, it is upon the claim to garner credibility. Thus far, there is none - not even one example.
I agree.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I consider a concern founded if it's even vaguely possible, however unlikely. Granted not very well founded.

Your concern is very well founded, there's lots of data to back it up. Start a new thread on the topic and I'll engage. Following ecofarms's "logic" will lead you into a hall of mirrors.

You - I've heard some neighbors talking about the house on fire, two blocks over.
Ecofarm - You have seen the house on fire? If you haven't, then your concern is unfounded.

This leads to concerns only being valid if you have personal knowledge of them.

I've heard that species X is nearing extinction. I'm worried.
Have you done a species census yourself? If not, then your concern is unfounded.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

In other words, you have no basis whatsoever to claim that the women of the early church were behaving differently than every other woman of the time. That is, shutting the **** up.
In other words, you're unaware both that Christianity spread beyond Israel and that Paganism was a threat to theocratic hegemony. Problem is, these things are facts.

Thus, we have evidence that there must have been another purpose to Paul's advice.

That he was writing to a church in the most persecuted region of the time gives indication of his purpose - the survival of the church.
So we're back to speculation. Other than the age-old misogyny attributed to him, we're left with your interpretation of Paul as protector of the Church. This conclusion doesn't fit where we've already refuted your earlier premises. Still waiting for the proof that has somehow eluded two millennia of religious scholars. But hey, maybe you know something they don't, eh?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

So we're back to speculation.

We're back to logic and reason. And the only counter you've presented is a noble savage myth for which you cannot provide even a single citation.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

We're back to logic and reason. And the only counter you've presented is a noble savage myth for which you cannot provide even a single citation.
I've already explained precisely why you're employing a term you don't understand.

There's all the proof in the world for the gynocentric component of Paganism, as illustrated by the plethora of feminine deities, figures and principles it encapsulates. That you'll insist upon restricting treatment of such to a very limited region that doesn't cover the entirety of the Church's operation, in defence of your position is absurd. Especially where phenomena like the witch burnings and the Inquisition and such never held sway.

The Pauline epistles have yet to be attributed any conclusive motive, whatever your 'guess'. Hence why such charges of misogyny survive to this day.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I've already explained precisely why you're employing a term you don't understand.

There's all the proof in the world for the gynocentric component of Paganism, as illustrated by the plethora of feminine deities, figures and principles it encapsulates.

I think you need to check the term:

Gynocentrism (Greek, gyno-, "woman", or "female") is the ideological practice, conscious or otherwise, of asserting the female point of view in public debate on a wide range of social issues.[1][2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynocentrism


I await (not really) your citation (which doesn't exist).
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I think you need to check the term:


Gynocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I await (not really) your citation (which doesn't exist).
Once more, explained earlier. Paganism runs the entire gamut of such religions from a central goddess figure right through to consorts and fringe figures. It allows for a gynocentric interpretation. I realise that cherry picking from posts for the purpose of evasive obfuscation is your signature, but for anyone following the discussion, it's all there, so why bother?

And I'll await your conclusive proof pertaining to the Pauline epistles.

At this juncture, you're still guessing where I have historical proof.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Some of the things you say on this forum with regards to women's rights issues causes me to get this visual image of you as some fat old dude, almost bald with crazy grey hair , sitting around in his boxers and wife beater smoking a cigar and playing cards wit da boys.

Only in spirit, I'm afraid. Only in spirit. ;)

IOW, bitching because the world is changing and those dames are fagetin' der place.

What can I say? Living in a doomed society on the fast track to decay when you're one of the few people around forward thinking and "big picture" oriented enough to actually give a damn about it tends to be somewhat grating. :shrug:

It makes it sound as if there was some kind of envy for the life you imagine they imagine their men were leading.

You're joking, right? What else can much of modern feminism be said to be about if not a generalized sense of "gender envy?"

Do you think ultra high powered CEO women are putting on their best "alpha male" impressions and stomping around with the "big boys" for nothing?

Equal rights and equal standing are one thing, and I fully support them as such. However, that's generally not what many modern incarnations of ideological feminism aim for.

They're basically out to "even the score" and put men in their place.

They want to work like men, fight like men, and even f*ck like men (frankly, not even most men at that, but an exaggerated male stereotype), and they take the slightest suggestion that many women might not be naturally interested in doing so as being tantamount to blatant heresy.

I would argue that. I believe a child raised in a happy home with a single parent is better off then in a home with two where each are miserable.

I'm sorry, but by any objective measure, you would be wrong.

Single mothers are almost universally worse off in terms of finances and parental workload than married women. They are far more likely to live in poverty or on welfare than any other group, and they're far more likely than married women to be the victims of domestic abuse and violent crime as well.

Keep in mind that we haven't even begun to factor in the negative impacts that being brought up in households without consistent opposite sex role models can often be observed to have upon the children of single parents either.

You sound as if you bought in to that 1950s Ozzie and Harriet storyline. We both know that wasn't real. Fantasy

My parents did it, and their parents before them. I see no problems with them. :shrug:

Men aren't "necessary" to female affairs. You couple with someone because you love them and want to share your life with them, not because they are "necessary".

Men and women are equally "necessary" to one another's affairs.

The kind of people who are content to go it completely alone are rare, and, IMO, likely more than a tad broken.

I, personally, have never met a woman that has this point of view.

They are all over this thread.

Again, I simply find it ironic that "feminists" who would preach that women do not "need" men would be so reflexively offended at the idea of men taking the same view towards them

It's kind of amusing to see so many women (and feminist men, for that matter) bristle at the idea of young men doing exactly what many women have been doing for the last half century. They basically seem to want to "shame" such men back into conformity. :lol:

Vain reasons? Such as?

"Falling out of love," "irreconcilable differences," "unhappiness," feeling that one can "do better," petty egotistical disputes, etca, etca.

The number of divorces initiated for legitimately irreparable marital problems these days is vanishingly small. Under most circumstances, the decision is born out of simple fickle laziness more than anything else.

I do now and always have found intellectual men very sexy. Men who are balanced and have a little higher emotional IQ then the frat boy or construction worker archetype you referenced. My guess is that you would provide this guy as YOUR example of weak or effeminate. So maybe your definition is a little broad.

Ummmm... I am one of those men. :lol:

I might be a somewhat prickly varient of the archetype, but I certainly fit well within it's confines.

With regard to my earlier comment, while completely clueless (as opposed to merely unlucky) "nice guys" may qualify to a certain extent as well, I was referring more to "skinny jean" wearing "Hipster," "Emo," or "Metrosexual" types than anyone else. They are men who either make a conscious decision to reject their masculinity, or who lack the confidence in their societal role to display any in the first place. You would likely assume many of these men were homosexual if you did not know them.

Also, keep in mind that I did not bring the "frat boy" type of man into this discussion as a positive example of male virtue either. They might be more traditionally "masculine" than their counter parts above. However, they are generally no more ambitious.

To the contrary, they often exemplify the modern trend towards "extended adolescence" to its fullest exent.
 
Last edited:
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

At this juncture, you're still guessing where I have historical proof.

You have proof of nothing. There was no "asserting the female point of view in public debate on a wide range of social issues" in ancient Israel or the surrounding areas. Not in Greece, not in Rome, not in Persia, not in Assyria, not anywhere.

You are clinging to a noble savage myth in order to deny obvious logic and reason.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

You have proof of nothing. There was no "asserting the female point of view in public debate on a wide range of social issues" in ancient Israel or the surrounding areas. Not in Greece, not in Rome, not anywhere.

You are clinging to a noble savage myth in order to deny obvious logic and reason.
Covered previously.

Is this it? Repeat and rephrase for the duration? I mean that's cool, but if you could find your way to providing that proof I asked for from the beginning of this shameless rip cord, that'd be great. Cheers in advance.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Covered previously.

Is this it? Repeat and rephrase for the duration? I mean that's cool, but if you could find your way to providing that proof I asked for from the beginning of this shameless rip cord, that'd be great. Cheers in advance.

You made the claim. You provided no evidence whatsoever. Just BS about "oooh, the goddesses!"

And you already admitted that women didn't have a voice for 2000 years. Now you want to claim that there were societies in which the female point of view was predominant in public discourse. What a load of crap.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Or not, as the case may be.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

You made the claim. You provided no evidence whatsoever. Just BS about "oooh, the goddesses!"

And you already admitted that women didn't have a voice for 2000 years. Now you want to claim that there were societies in which the female point of view was predominant in public discourse. What a load of crap.
Those women were goddesses?

Wow. Who knew?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Feel free to link your comment, but the reason I and another poster were questioning you was your claim that women are being discriminated against in how they are paid. I noted that I was surprised that you referenced the single women earnings data because that's not really that well known but there is no data to support your claim that women are being discriminated against in terms of wages. There is a wage differential but not due to employers being evil bastards and stomping on women.

No, I didn't, dude. :lol: All I did was state the fact that in some demographics, they are indeed paid less. You assumed, because my lean is "progressive," that I must be using the opposite overly simplistic argument to your own overly simplistic argument. And you still have not asked me to tell you what my motives or beliefs about that fact are. You have no interest in it. Your assumptions tell you everything you need to know to keep your world nice and simple.

It just never ceases to amaze me how much people will insert for you based on lean, to the point where when I state a simple fact with no commentary, people assume not only my motivation for stating it, but also what I believe the causality to be.

So when I state a fact that you like because you can use it to cry about how things are so unfair for men, you assume I'm stating it for the same reasons, and you like me.

But when I state a fact you don't like, because it doesn't serve your purpose, you assume I'm stating it as a form of confrontation, and you don't like me.

It's bizarre. It's not just you, but that was such a stark example that I can't not comment on it. A fact is a fact, and in this partisan culture, amongst the propagators of such partisanship, even inanimate facts apparently have secret motives.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

The buzz in some quarters these days is that what women really want is a strong masculine male who is unafraid to lead them. Go figure. It is human nature to want what you're not getting, I guess.

Lead them? Lead them where?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

That, and probably generalizations like that only lead so far, I guess. In the end, every male and female is an individual with different preferences.

Yeah, "leading" us alright. :roll: Leading us right into being a maid and caretaker. Why do men think it makes them manly to NEED a mommy anyway? :lol:
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Yeah, "leading" us alright. :roll: Leading us right into being a maid and caretaker. Why do men think it makes them manly to NEED a mommy anyway? :lol:

To be fair, I think many women do have an expectation that a man be confident enough to "take charge" of at least some aspects of a relationship, and they do often tend to prefer men who possess that quality over those who don't. This might not necessarily be true of all women, but I do think it is true of most (it's certainly more true of women than the reverse is true of men, in any case).

However, it should also be noted that "taking the lead" doesn't necessarily imply that a man need be domineering either. It's perfectly possible to be "the man" in a relationship without going into full-on "Tigger" mode. :lol:
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

To be fair, I think many women do have an expectation that a man be confident enough to "take charge" of at least some aspects of a relationship, and they do often tend to prefer men who possess that quality over those who don't. This might not necessarily be true of all women, but I do think it is true of most (it's certainly more true of women than the reverse is true of men, in any case).

Such as?

However, it should also be noted that "taking the lead" doesn't necessarily imply that a man need be domineering either. It's perfectly possible to be "the man" in a relationship without going into full-on "Tigger" mode. :lol:

Well, what does "taking the lead" mean to you? Why does one or other have to lead? How about making decisions TOGETHER as a family unit instead of nominating yourself as the "leader?"
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Such as?

Well, what does "taking the lead" mean to you? Why does one or other have to lead? How about making decisions TOGETHER as a family unit instead of nominating yourself as the "leader?"

:shrug: It just kind of happens in my experience. Do what you're going to do, and be confident about how you do it, and a lot of women will just kind of go along with you. They even seem to like it.

Beyond that, bossy, domineering women who are liable to second guess or excessively interfere in what I'm trying to do tend to get on my nerves. While the occasional bit of constructive criticism is certainly called for, and I can handle even overtly bitchy women in small doses, much more than that is eventually going to lead me to push back, which tends to be less than productive all the way around.

Frankly, given how often they complain about partners that they can "push around" , it wouldn't appear that most women appreciate the more submissive types of men any way. It is pretty damn rare to see a man complain about about the reverse situation.

This isn't to say that both partners can't exert influence over the relationship. To the contrary, I'd argue that women hold more influence than most men realize. They simply exert it in more subtle ways under many circumstances.

A "real man" shouldn't have to bully his woman to gain her respect, and a "real woman" shouldn't have to be a shrew to make her voice heard in a relationship.

The man may be the "head" of the houshold under many circumstances, but the woman is the neck and the heart. The neck turns the head and the heart keeps things running.
 
Last edited:
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

:shrug: It just kind of happens in my experience. Do what you're going to do, and be confident about how you do it, and a lot of women will just kind of go along with you. They even seem to like it.

Like what? You'll have to be more specific. Also, I doubt if a lot of women would just go along with you. It's really not in our nature, regardless of how wimpy you think we are "supposed" to be. I have my OWN wants and desires. They may or may not fall in line with yours, but I certainly do not need to be "lead" anywhere. If I agree, it's because I agree, not because I want or need a leader to tell me how to think or feel or how to make decisions.

Beyond that, bossy, domineering women who are liable to second guess or excessively interfere in what I'm trying to do tend to get on my nerves. While the occasional bit of constructive criticism is certainly called for, and I can handle even overtly bitchy women in small doses, much more than that is eventually going to lead me to push back, which simply leads to problems all the way around.

Oh, I see. So if a woman takes the "lead" then she is bitchy, bossy and domineering. How very interesting. :mrgreen:

Frankly, given how often they complain about partners that they can "push around" , it wouldn't appear that most women appreciate the more submissive types of men any way. It is pretty damn rare to see a man complain about about the reverse situation.

Nobody likes a complete wimp. Not men or women. You want a woman who does everything you say and has no mind or personality of her own? Who just agrees with you all the time? That is soooooo lame dude.

This isn't to say that both partners can't exert influence over the relationship. To the contrary, I'd argue that women hold more influence than most men realize. They simply exert it in more subtle ways under many circumstances.

At least you realize this much. :2razz:

A "real man" shouldn't have to bully his woman to gain her respect, and a "real woman" shouldn't have to be a shrew to make her voice heard in a relationship.

I agree. There should be open and healthy communication in any relationship. Granted, we all have our "bitchy" moments though. Lol!

The man may be the "head" of the houshold under many circumstances, but the woman is the neck and the heart. The neck turns the head and the heart keeps things running.

Ha-ha! That is soooo goofy! ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom