This is a situation where David Quinn puzzles me with his feminine and masculine as they are gender specific. He seems wise in the area when he does not apply it to gender, but as a theory to all...then he tiptoes out and begins making it a gender issue again. Where I would agree that a woman "imitating" a man shows lack of ambition as does most of the feminist dogma that is being extolled. If I were faced with the majority of these feminists, I would boldly tell them that they do not represent me. Some of them are not so ridiculous, but all tolled they want to blame men for their plight. The problem is that women have to take the iniative and work as hard as the men or harder...but then this intimidates men and because they still have the upper hand in the workforce, they turn about and intimidate the woman..if she is weak, she submits. If she doesn't, she finds herself on an island...but perhaps that is where men have felt themselves all along too. Out there alone. So, I say to women, be careful what you wish for and be ready to handle what consequences may come...as I am about to tell you why men feel this strange feeling in the home...keenobserver wrote:
The idea was to provide the fairer sex with greater, equal opportunity and allow them to catch up. But instead, due to their huge feminine component, and mans ignorance about this, especially the elite of society, women are feeling pressured, overwhelmed, unappreciated, which makes them less available and less a pleasure for their men and nation, causing resentment and consequence, and so on and so on.
I was a "token" female employed during the beginning of the experiment...the reason why it fails is that if I chose to marry and WE chose to have a child, I had to not only be the nurturer, mother, wife, domestic servant, manager of the home, BUT hold down a full-time job. He claims he has no talent in the domestic area...as if I had any formal training? "Well, you're a woman, you should know more about these things," he would joke. Seriously? I really and truthfully didn't. I was a mess at my parent's house, was responsible with money only because I had very little, and as to children - he knew as much as I did and had equal opportunity to learn, but refused. My mother went through Lamaze classes with me because he couldn't stand hospitals. When Lamaze failed to work, I was put through a pitocin drip without aenesthesia...very painful, and then had an epidural block while having to remain laying on my side for hours until they decided to perform surgery...all of which was endured, but made my husband ill to even think about what I was going through.
So, had I not married...what would have happened to me? Would I have gone on and proved your theory wrong? The problem is what to do with the children? Both want children, but only one is willing to sacrifice their job for them. And before you start throwing the words inferior feminine, remember how you came into the world...I will take liberty with David Quinn's words to answer:
"Because it is the active side of ourselves. It is only through concerted action that anything gets done": to wit, whether it is making sure the roof doesn't cave in, the children and husband are fed, that their educational needs are met, that their aesthetic needs are met, tend to their husband and children when ill - even if they are sick as well, and most importantly carrying you for 9 months very uncomfortably in their bellies, while waking up nights and/or mornings so sick from nausea...and all the while holding down jobs. Either the woman's home life or her work life will suffer...or perhaps both.
It is no small wonder that this is the end result:
The feminine, being directionless and passive, is not only entirely useless to this end, but it exerts a strong pull on our active, masculine sides to such an extent that most people end up channeling whatever masculinity they possess towards the satisfying of their feminine desires and fears.
So, if you are a young person...when it comes time for your friends to marry and have children...pay attention, pay close attention to who is really active. Frankly, I do see these roles changing, but to much of the chagrin of those here for they look upon these nurturing males as feminine, when if they understood the amount of active masculine to raise a child they wouldn't say such things.
climbing Mt Everest equivalent to raising a child to full adulthood as an independent being....
building a bridge equivalent to teaching a child how to work with others in concert to perform tasks
or creating a symphony equivalent to listening to a child read their first book because you taught them how to read.
Encouraging that child through support to acheive disciplines that he, by his feminine side, might be to fearful to attempt, thus giving him the courage and ability to accomplish the tasks that are seen as much grander than child rearing.
A child's life and the role one plays in its development is more important than physically building bridges, climbing mountains or creating symphonies because without a proper raising, he may be something short of an animal.
The man gets a job just as she has, but in his own home is completely passive and directionless because of his fears of assisting in something that he may fail or doesn't want to do, so through his feminine, he becomes helpless and enabled by the masculine of the woman in the home.
If I have miscontrued my liberties with any theory, then by all means allow me your insight.
