GENIUS FORUMS

First Ladies Featured on New Coins

First ladies wielding power behind their husband's seat of power has long been a point of contention with me. Their names appear on no ballots, but they are granted an unspoken deference, influencing decisions from the shadows of legitimate authority. This is endemic of households the world over. The husband is portrayed as holding authority, but not a word drops from his lips not critiqued nor uninfluenced by his "better" half.

No wonder the fret over gay marriage. I wager that the majority of opponents to this proposal of equality is fueled by women, women in league with the power she allows behind the ecclesiastic pulpits which seeks to anchor her position in divine moorings. The church is an institution grown and fertilized in the grace of wives. No threat to the solidarity of this time-honored institution "marriage" must stand. Divorce is only allowed it's place because the wife is doubly protected: guaranteed a hefty severance package even if it is not her willing decision, and if it is her choice she is thus ensured and free to graze after greener pastures. So too the churches the world over bend to the will of woman, bidding her do as she will.

I'm not getting that interpretation at all from the article. The article just seems to be saying that this is the next thing they came up with to redesign some coins. They've already gone through Presidents and states, now they're down to First Ladies as something new.

Beyond that, I don't believe that any whipped man would get to any real position of power. Okay, so the wife has a voice to a powerful ear, but not dismissing her if he thought what she said has some merit does not equate with being whipped.

I'm not getting that interpretation at all from the article. The article just seems to be saying that this is the next thing they came up with to redesign some coins. They've already gone through Presidents and states, now they're down to First Ladies as something new.

That's because that was my insight into the issue, the article serving no other purpose than to expose the pedestal upon which first ladies are being hoisted.

Beyond that, I don't believe that any whipped man would get to any real position of power. Okay, so the wife has a voice to a powerful ear, but not dismissing her if he thought what she said has some merit does not equate with being whipped.

An uncompromising marriage is a living hell. No marriage is without its compromises between spouses. Every man who chases after pussy is whipped, whether he escapes the dragnet of marriage is largely luck or disposition. No one unmarried will ever rise to presidency in the US, or I should assume any other country. I have not researched the matter, but I'm sure I'm not too far off. A married man is a man with something to lose. A married man is also a man "broken" (after the manner of wild horses becoming domesticated) to some extent. Basically, a married man is domesticated, the ring is a sign that his ambitions are somewhat curtailed. It also shows the type of responsibility people want to see in their leader, one who knows what a woman wants. That is, one who knows how to serve. One who knows how to compromise- one who knows how to be manipulated graciously.

I think you may even be giving the First Ladies a bit too much credit here for even being too interested in most of what their husbands are doing. Other than Hillary Clinton, the First Ladies tended to have their own little projects (like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign), did some redecorating of the White House, did some hostessing, some charity functions, and that was plenty to keep them busy.

Today, marriages do require some compromising on both parts, but as long as the right spouse is selected, there shouldn't be too much compromising from either person. If compromising starts getting in the way of political ambitions (or other power-weilding higher positions), then the politician will not get very far. Especially a few decades ago, the wife of a powerful person was pretty much just a "yes, dear" sort, and highly content with just having clout amongst the other wives in the ladies clubs.

Women were generally powerless pieces of property. The lucky ones got a guilded cage, that's all. All the husband had to do was give her a firm "No" and that was generally the end of the story (generally meaning "most wives" not "all wives most of the time"). What's more, the more powerful the husband was, the more she intrinsically got from just being the wife of a powerful man, therefore the less she was inclined to want/need a compromise on anything - she already got her share.

You might find it insightful to read one of those ladies books entitled something like "How to Marry a Millionaire" to get an idea of what the wives of powerful men were like.

I think you may even be giving the First Ladies a bit too much credit here for even being too interested in most of what their husbands are doing. Other than Hillary Clinton, the First Ladies tended to have their own little projects (like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign), did some redecorating of the White House, did some hostessing, some charity functions, and that was plenty to keep them busy.

The influencing of policy was more likely to come about during the throes of passion or in private dining than in the first ladies social commitments. Ask any man when a women has her way with him- it is most often when he thinks he's having his way with her.

Today, marriages do require some compromising on both parts, but as long as the right spouse is selected, there shouldn't be too much compromising from either person. If compromising starts getting in the way of political ambitions (or other power-weilding higher positions), then the politician will not get very far. Especially a few decades ago, the wife of a powerful person was pretty much just a "yes, dear" sort, and highly content with just having clout amongst the other wives in the ladies clubs.

That is pure bullocks. That is a media image which is imagined to reflect reality, a "Leave it to Beaver" come alive. The truth is we cannot know for sure how women behaved. Sure they were expected to be demure, subservient and above all obedient. But every married man knows how quickly the charade drops when the curtain of marriage closes with the door to the wedding bed. Women are class acts, that is class-A actors when pursuing their mark. Putting on what airs they need to accomplish their ends, having won over their man they can rest on their proverbial laurels. Lulled into thinking he has succeeded, the bedded man rests content and unawares. Little by little the order of things subverts until he comes to depend upon her to such an extent that he makes every concession necessary to keep the peace.

Women were generally powerless pieces of property. The lucky ones got a guilded cage, that's all. All the husband had to do was give her a firm "No" and that was generally the end of the story (generally meaning "most wives" not "all wives most of the time"). What's more, the more powerful the husband was, the more she intrinsically got from just being the wife of a powerful man, therefore the less she was inclined to want/need a compromise on anything - she already got her share.

Next time you have sex with a man, see how powerless you are mid-coitus. Just because you see a man dismiss his wife in public does not at all correlate to their private life. I should remark that I do not at all think a woman's influence over her husband is due entirely to sexual activity, but rather that is the physical consumation of their relationship. But he has a far older psychological dependency springing from his time with mother, which is reinvigorated during his intimate time with his wife. They both have their guilded cage, it is love. And it is a lie.

note: edited error

Marriage also signals that you aren't a homosexual.

Why does Hilary Clinton want to be President again? :-)

Greg Shantz wrote:Marriage also signals that you aren't a homosexual.

Why does Hilary Clinton want to be President again?

Indeed. Women are clearly threatened by homosexuals, largely due to fearing the loss of power over men. Women want to influence all men, it doesn't matter if the men aren't in their realm of immediate influence. I wonder to what extent the evolution of the clergy was influenced by women removing the perceived threat of homosexuals to a safe-haven abroad. Look at the Vatican, a fabulous display of fantastic decadence if ever I've seen one. Claiming to be for the greater glory of God, it looks more like a gay-pride parade to me.

Safely housing these men uninterested and so uninfluenced by women in the wings of divine power, these men returned the favor by providing women with a place of equality under whose roof women would be told to be subservient, obedient and so on. But really it doesn't matter what women are told to do or how to act, they'll do what they want and behave however they will either way. The husband can rest on the authority of the church, and so feel to be empowered. But we all know that whatever conflict has arisen will only blow over with the inevitable change in her mood.

edit: I should note that I do not infer that all of the clergy are or ever where homosexual. Plenty of men inclined towards genius seem born with no discernable interest in relations with women. These too, I imagine would be shipped off and away to the clergy before they started speaking out. I should add that interior decorators seem to have a flare for the audacious to begin with, coupled with the Vatican's bank account and the imagination becomes the limiting factor in extravagance.

edited - Originally I posted a couple of examples illustrating that a man does not just do what he is told by his significant other during coitus. Post was removed for reasons listed below.

You need a counsellor, not a genius forum.

Seriously girl, noone needs to know that much about you.

Elizabeth wrote:

Bryan wrote:Next time you have sex with a man, see how powerless you are mid-coitus.

I didn't have any power Bryan - none - so cut your talking out of your hat like you think you know what the world is like. You don't.

Lust for Woman completely clouded this male's mind, blinding him to the considering the consequences of his actions. In this sense, both parties were powerless to a mental projection.

Generally, one who is more capable of controlling mental projections, is more powerful. And generally, females are weaker, because of their "absence" habit. That is, their willingless to allow sexuality to be projected onto them.

A male can't play chivalrous roles for a female who isn't a damsel in distress.

.

prince wrote:You need a counsellor, not a genius forum.

Seriously girl, noone needs to know that much about you.

Do you have a better suggestion of how to directly refute Bryan's delusion about females having the power to influence a guy's behavior mid-coitus than with a real example? Bryan was talking out of his hat and made a direct challenge for me to perform a live experiment. Such was already done, and I gave him the results.

Believe me prince, I weighed disclosing that one carefully. I saw when Bryan initially posted that, and I went outside to contemplate for over an hour whether or not to post the answer. I don't think you understand the risk I took to post that, but I decided that because Bryan's views on gender are so lopsided, it was important to give what I had to straighten his views on reality - not just for him, but also for all the guys he could influence with his lopsided views - guys who think like my ex, and who could do something like that to others because they share Bryan's delusion about biological females.

Kelly Jones wrote:Lust for Woman completely clouded this male's mind, blinding him to the considering the consequences of his actions.

So you're saying that mid-coitus, a man is not really thinking (I agree), and therefore also refute Bryan's suggestion that a woman could influence political decisions by telling him what to do mid-coitus?

A guy in the throes of passion might say he agreed to just about anything, but he would not expect that he had to follow through with any promises he might have made under those conditions.

From the article:

• U.S. Mint plans series to honor nation's first ladies
• First one issued will (naturally) feature Martha Washington
• Five bachelor presidents' administrations will have stand-ins

Stand-ins? The Prez's fave prostitute?

Thomas Jefferson's wife died before he became president, so the gold coin for his administration will feature a symbolic representation of Lady Liberty

Darn. Well, maybe for the other four.

While a new presidential series will be $1 circulating coins, the wives will be on half-ounce gold coins with each likely to sell for more than $300.

The hope is that changing the images on the presidential coins every three months will spur greater interest and help the maligned dollar coin finally achieve acceptance with Americans. The Susan B. Anthony dollar, introduced in 1979, and the Sacagawea dollar, introduced in 2000, have both been flops.

Oh, I see. The Prez's face will replace other women on the standard 1 dollar coin, circulating out and about. And the First Wives will be on expensive collector gold coins, highly valued but hidden away in the private safes and display cases of primarily men. Big strides towards equality being made here.

The Susan B. Anthony dollar, introduced in 1979, and the Sacagawea dollar, introduced in 2000, have both been flops.

That's what you get for sending a woman to do a man's job.

The half-ounce gold coins for the spouses have been designed to appeal primarily to collectors, although the Mint will be offering bronze medal duplicates that will sell for a more affordable $3 to $4.

Ah. Whew, more men can afford wives now, albeit lower rent wives. As it should be, symbols all in order, carry on, all's right with the world.

Bryan McGilly wrote: First ladies wielding power behind their husband's seat of power has long been a point of contention with me. Their names appear on no ballots, but they are granted an unspoken deference, influencing decisions from the shadows of legitimate authority.

Heh, you're giving new meaning to the word 'espouse': to make one's own, support, as in a cause or doctrine that which one's spouse (wife) advocates.

Small pun aside, I don't believe your premise, that First Wives influence national policy through their hubbies.

This is endemic of households the world over. The husband is portrayed as holding authority, but not a word drops from his lips not critiqued nor uninfluenced by his "better" half.

In the average household, in many cases yes.

But in the White House, contrary to popular belief, the President wields next to no power. He is told by higher-ups what to do and say. (Question: do you believe Geo Bush can even think?) He is a puppet, selected (not elected) for his suitability for this purpose. Which renders the argument of First Wives' impact moot.

So actually, the President's face on a coin gives new meaning to the word 'figurehead.' Go figure.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I think you may even be giving the First Ladies a bit too much credit here for even being too interested in most of what their husbands are doing. Other than Hillary Clinton, the First Ladies tended to have their own little projects (like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign), did some redecorating of the White House, did some hostessing, some charity functions, and that was plenty to keep them busy.

Well, they were apparently more than a few projects. Jackie Cochran wanted women pilots in the military and she went to Eleanor Roosevelt to try to accomplish this and was turned down. Apparently it was beleived that Eleanor was the correct person to speak to, despite her not agreeing with this issue - which indicates some level of involvement.

Katy, all that you have confirmed here is that Bryan isn't the only person in history to make the mistake of thinking the First Ladies had influence over their husband's policies. I take it from your report that perhaps Eleanor didn't even dare mention such a thing to her husband.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Katy, all that you have confirmed here is that Bryan isn't the only person in history to make the mistake of thinking the First Ladies had influence over their husband's policies. I take it from your report that perhaps Eleanor didn't even dare mention such a thing to her husband.

Anna Eleanor Roosevelt (October 11, 1884 – November 7, 1962) was an American political leader who used her stature as First Lady of the United States from 1933 to 1945 to promote her husband's (Franklin D. Roosevelt's) New Deal, as well as Civil Rights. After his death she built a career as an author-speaker, a New Deal Coalition advocate and spokesperson for human rights. She was a First-wave feminist (but opposed the Equal Rights Amendment)and was an activist role model as First Lady. Eleanor was a leader in forming the United Nations, the United Nations Association and Freedom House. She chaired the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. President Harry S. Truman called her the First Lady of the World in honor of her extensive human rights promotions. -Wiki

Who cares if first ladies influence presidents? I imagine that the president's friends also tend to influence him. Maybe he's also influenced by newspapers, magazines, television, radio, odd comments he overhears from white house staff, etc. Eleanor Roosevelt seems like a particularly upstanding individual, and nobody who I'd mind influencing a president in the least.

So she promoted her husband's New Deal as well as Civil Rights, then after his death, she built a career of her own - still building on carrying on her husband's vision. This does not indicate what Bryan was saying, that the First Ladies had significant influence on Presidential decisions.

Again, if the couple had any significant differences in their strongest beliefs, they would not be a couple. I doubt President Roosevelt had any opposition to Eleanor's views on Civil Rights, and I doubt that lack of opposition had anything to do with anything Eleanor said during sexual intercourse. I believe the President and his advisors found Civil Rights to be politically advantageous to support.

What is the exact point you are trying to make with this example Katy? Do you think that Civil Rights was a bad idea that some man only went along with because he was thinking with his smaller head?

Expectant,

The level of influence you are talking about is similar to what I said earlier:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay, so the wife has a voice to a powerful ear, but not dismissing her if he thought what she said has some merit does not equate with being whipped.

and is nothing like the level of influence that Bryan indicated he believes they have:

Bryan McGilly wrote:First ladies wielding power behind their husband's seat of power has long been a point of contention with me. Their names appear on no ballots, but they are granted an unspoken deference, influencing decisions from the shadows of legitimate authority.

...

A married man is also a man "broken" (after the manner of wild horses becoming domesticated) to some extent. Basically, a married man is domesticated, the ring is a sign that his ambitions are somewhat curtailed. It also shows the type of responsibility people want to see in their leader, one who knows what a woman wants. That is, one who knows how to serve. One who knows how to compromise- one who knows how to be manipulated graciously.

I don't think President Roosevelt got manipulated into Civil Rights by his wife. There's a big difference between being able to make a suggestion, whether from being a wife, parent, sibling, or friend, and being a puppet only to the wife because of sex.

Elizabeth,

I could relate, how believable or not, an instance of straight-up abuse incurred during sex with a girlfriend, but I own the outcomes of the situations I have put myself in and let them go. I think you still let these experiences hold sway to such an extent that you relegate sex for every woman to this one standard. Everyone gets hurt, and it is the nature of the ego to hurt. The ego is violence. It is bad form to dismiss anyone because you were once hurt by some asshole who you, for some reason or other, felt you needed to form a relationship with.

In a sentence: your experience of abuse does not relate, let alone refute any of the above speculations.

Elizabeth wrote: Believe me prince, I weighed disclosing that one carefully. I saw when Bryan initially posted that, and I went outside to contemplate for over an hour whether or not to post the answer. I don't think you understand the risk I took to post that, but I decided that because Bryan's views on gender are so lopsided, it was important to give what I had to straighten his views on reality - not just for him, but also for all the guys he could influence with his lopsided views - guys who think like my ex, and who could do something like that to others because they share Bryan's delusion about biological females.

What risks did you take? The only risks I could think of was revealing a story that was emotional for you. I could see how. Somewhere in your mind you hold all men to task for his actions. The unconscious mechanism of guilt is put into play. I will not be guilted, nor do I imagine anyone worth their salt will be, by your appeal to emotion. Sex is not always so tragic. Really your response sickens me, such a play on emotions.

Your reply was abusive as a TV commercial.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: What is the exact point you are trying to make with this example Katy? Do you think that Civil Rights was a bad idea that some man only went along with because he was thinking with his smaller head?

My point is that while they agree on the general big picture, there are smaller ways that a man can be influenced that can still matter. Cochran got what she wanted only a year after she asked despite the president originally saying no...

Elizabeth,


Bryan's views aren't quite as lopsided as you imagine.

Elizabeth wrote:

Kelly wrote:Lust for Woman completely clouded this male's mind, blinding him to the considering the consequences of his actions.

So you're saying that mid-coitus, a man is not really thinking (I agree), and therefore also refute Bryan's suggestion that a woman could influence political decisions by telling him what to do mid-coitus?

At present, you are "in mid-coitus" with Woman. It's essentially the same situation, because you're not aware of the psychological hold Woman has on your thinking.

A guy in the throes of passion might say he agreed to just about anything, but he would not expect that he had to follow through with any promises he might have made under those conditions.

That's sane. I wouldn't trust any promises made while my thoughts were manipulated by emotions.

Would you trust a part of your mind that handicapped your reasoning? The feminine mind is such a part of the mind: the willingness to float along without clear purpose, bonding with things instead of becoming them, and performing a role to "appear knowledgeable" instead of knowing without doubt what is true.

I've noticed, Elisabeth, that you tend to talk a lot, and on a relatively shallow level. The Genius Forum is for much more than that. It isn't a place where a feminine person will last long. A strong valuing of highly logical thought, and a deep need for enlightenment, drives those who prefer to use the Genius Forum.

I value high quality thinking on the forum. It would be a shame to see it reflect common sense.

So, while discussion is helpful to stimulate thought and resolve one's doubts, it can easily flab out into mindless socialising. It may help if you spend some time thinking over your priorities.

.

A coupled or married man is a domesticated animal. In order to remain in this state he must do all he can to prove to his wife that he is worthy of her love and attention. This could mean showering her with gifts and kisses, or in Elizabeth’s case, hurting her during sex. Sometimes he must be strong and confident, and other times he must be weak and passive – depending on her mood. He may have to keep her locked indoors, or prostitute her on the streets. He may have to create laws for her to wear the hijab or the burqa, or to have equal pay, or equal voting rights. He may have to work fourteen hour days down a mine, or become President of the United States. Whatever her whim is, he must oblige.

Like the African cow that regularly has its jugular vein pierced to provide sustenance for its owner – a husband gives over his life for his wife's pleasure.

-
Sue

Liz, I'm wondering why you posted this. You say you went outside and debated for a long time before doing so, so I will work on the assumption that you did so with some intent. But the only possible ones I can see is to vindicate yourself against Bryan's statements, or an attempt to hurt/manipulate people. But the fact is that your desire for whichever of these is the case came without regard or concern for everyone else reading your post. Posting in public means that not only is Bryan going to read this (and thankfully Bryan is in control of his emotions enough to respond appropriately) but hundreds of people you know nothing about will read it (the highest count being 113 at one time - and that even with phpBB's constantly counting lower than reality) You have no consideration for the violence you commit against others. How would you like to unexpectedly run into a description of a violent rape while reading this board?

And you did the whole thing over a point that wasn't even really tangentally related. Bryan's comment was really more of a statement of how women control men in general. Your specific example was different - it's called abuse - but the general fact still remains. Women use sex to manipulate men.

Katy wrote:You have no consideration for the violence you commit against others.

Very well. It is removed. It was not to hurt or manipulate - I give people more credit than that. It was to clarify reality.

Sue, you are wrong in your suggestion that I wanted that, or that the women living in countries where they are repressed wanted laws to repress them.

Bryan, I sent you a pm.