Man Purses

[Tamara224]

Oooooo... I know I don't want to peeve Tamara

Ah, I have one trained! How many left to go before I have full domination of the men in the singles forum?

does that offend you?

No, if it offended me I would have used this smilie:

I was just rolling my eyes because I think that while feminism isn't all good - it's not the root of all modern evils either and I get annoyed at it being blamed for everything.

 

[*Starlight*]

OK. Let's put it this way: Male is in the camp, female is outside the camp. Male acting female is too close for comfort, like the invasion has happened, and we are seriously under threat.

hmm... sorry, I honestly can't understand this analogy at all

I'm not what you'd call "worried", about men with bags, but the terms Masculine and Feminine aren't stereotypes in my understanding of the word.

"Stereotypes", are rarely accurate generalisations, whereas "Masculine" and "Feminine" are distinctive descriptions, with definitive meanings.

Yes.... these terms by themselves aren't stereotypes, but from what I've seen, their general usage is mostly stereotypical. Saying "A lot of men act in a masculine way" isn't a stereotype, just a description of reality. But saying "Men must be masculine" or "You have to be masculine because you're male" is a stereotype, and it's wrong.

 

[Allegory]

care to explain because i know you haven't read it all?

I read to this part:

There is an all-out effort to just totally get rid of all vestiges of western Christian thought, get it out of everywhere, to get it out of the legal system, to get it out of the educational system, everywhere...as we have noted for you in past weeks.

So, we're dealing with this kind of fortress. And it's against that kind of ideology reigning in our society that we have to stand up and say, "Wives, submit to your husbands." And then get ready to be bombarded.

It was a god lol, but seriously......... I think they're over-reacting.


Wives, submit to your husbands? What year is this?

 

[Thomas1984]

Yeah, I was going to say that it sounds like he read into your words and picked them apart too much and didn't see the spirit of what you were trying to say. Almost like arguing over semantics... you're not against people living their lives, you just don't want them to define themselves by their material possessions and outer appearance. And that's not limited to metrosexuals or men who carry murses although in this context, it would be easy to misconstrue it as that.



Thomas.

Thank you.

Yeah I did miss your earlier posts, I tried going back to find some but couldn't so ended up basing most of my opinion on Coach's agreement with you (which turned out to be the wrong way for me to go about it)

I will agree with you that defining your life through materialism is rather shallow, but I don't think people should be told not to. Even by looking at someone who is well-dressed and stylish and saying "well I find people who define themselves through materialism to be shallow and have a gaping hole where the love of God should be" you, yourself, are defining them through materialism. They are not defining themselves, you are.

I will agree that there are a lot of people who need to learn that there's more to life, but there are a lot of people who keep up with fashion or use certain bags or whatever for reasons that aren't just based on materialism.

Yeah, my only real contribution to this thread before today, was an MP5K in a briefcase.

You're quite right, and I agree with what you're saying wholeheartedly. An appearance is merely that, and it's not my place or anyone elses to judge a person's heart because of it. I think it comes down to responsibility on both sides; and what motives there are for wanting a certain image, or for living a certain lifestyle.

Whilst I wouldn't want to go around telling people what to do, or what not to do, I would want to ask them if the choices they were making, were really making them happy. If they weren't, that's when I would be against their actions, but not the individual.

Freewill is the only real freedom there is, but it's all we really need to be ourselves.

Well, the thing about what Thomas said is that it cuts both ways.

People who wear murses/purses or whatever other "metrosexual" stuff may be defining themselves by their material possessions and outer appearance.

But the same can be said for people who make a big deal of dressing "masculine"... (or "feminine", or even stuff like punk, goth, professional, etc).

Both might be attempting to define themselves by outward appearance.

And both probably have a tendency to define others by outward appearance as well. And that's *my* pet peeve.

And again, I agree!

 

[ryanb6]

Ah, I have one trained! How many left to go before I have full domination of the men in the singles forum?

No, if it offended me I would have used this smilie:

I was just rolling my eyes because I think that while feminism isn't all good - it's not the root of all modern evils either and I get annoyed at it being blamed for everything.

no but it is the root of the evils that it is the root of. did i say anywhere it was the root of all modern evils, and did you even read what it said before you rolled you're eyes and assumed what i was saying?

 

[ryanb6]

I read to this part:
[/SIZE][/FONT]


It was a god lol, but seriously......... I think they're over-reacting.


Wives, submit to your husbands? What year is this?

you missunderstand the submit part. he does not. if you want to see his views on submission you can look them up on the same site.

 

[Allegory]

you missunderstand the submit part. he does not. if you want to see his views on submission you can look them up on the same site.

I don't really think it matters what his definition of submission is...his essay is just some long, crazy rant.

 

[ryanb6]

I don't really think it matters what his definition of submission is...his essay is just some long, crazy rant.

your opinion

 

[Tamara224]

no but it is the root of the evils that it is the root of. did i say anywhere it was the root of all modern evils, and did you even read what it said before you rolled you're eyes and assumed what i was saying?

I skimmed through it. And when I got to the part that said:

Wives...submit. That's the idea. To your own husbands just as the church does to Jesus Christ. Comparing with that 1 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 3, "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of a woman and God is the head of Christ." God the head of Christ, Christ the head of the man, the man the head of the woman. The man has the authority, the woman submits.

***
The man is the head of the woman, the woman submits to the husband. The woman loves him, gives her life to her children and her husband, maintain sensibility and purity, works at home.

And all I could do was roll my eyes. And I feel like doing it again now:

 

[eatenbylocusts]

Just look at the word "metrosexual." It is trying to apply homosexual flair and "style" to a heterosexual male. I have a real issue with that, and that embracing of that lifestyle bothers me. It is basicly saying that being manly and masculine is inferior. Guys that embrace that style dive me insane and make me vomit a little in my mouth.

Coach

I can admire a well-dressed "metro" man, but I can't see my bf dressed like that and it wouldn't be him. He dressed up for my work party, but usually it's t-shirts and jeans. He's a manly man and likes to play in the dirt on his motorbike. Ahhh, the testosterone!
I had a bf that always carried a fanny pack. He could also sew better than me, decorate a cake and string flowers on a lei. I'm liking my "playing-in-the-dirt" man a whole lot more.

 

[ryanb6]

I skimmed through it. And when I got to the part that said:




And all I could do was roll my eyes. And I feel like doing it again now:

so you disagree then with the bible?

 

[Tamara224]

so you disagree then with the bible?

I disagree with that person's interpretation of the Bible.

The Bible never says that women have to "work at home." And that's just one instance on which I disagree.

 

[ryanb6]

I disagree with that person's interpretation of the Bible.

The Bible never says that women have to "work at home." And that's just one instance on which I disagree.

ok i accept that i thought you were referring to the submit part.

 

[radhead]

Coach, I'm not sure what your problem is. Yesterday I though you were just joking. Now you sound like you are trying to get a response out of me. All I've done is go along with your jokes.

Is it because I implied (jokingly) that you secretly want to be accepted with a purse? Maybe there's some truth there.

Or maybe you just need to chill.

 

[CoachR64]

No, you have personally come after me, insulted me, and attacked me on multiple threads. I am trying to figure out why you have a personal issue with me. Nothing more, nothing less.

Coach

 

[radhead]

Well, I may have disagreed with you more seriously in a different thread, but certainly not this one. I don't even take this issue seriously (at all).

I do remember our first exchange, but this was months ago. You argued with me after I opened a thread and practically killed the entire topic. And it was due to your stubborn attitude, general ignorance and false assumptions. I may have seen that same attitude on a different recent thread but it wasn't a big deal.

Mostly I just joke around. I thought you were getting the joke. Sorry.

 

[CoachR64]

No, I am referring to the Goodbye Thread I started where you and several others attacked my character. Only one person on there apologized and talked it out with me. So, I just took it that your "attacks" here were carrying over from that.

I simply don't like being attacked, and I will fight back. That is a fault of mine. I will admit it whole heartedly. I would normally take what was said here as a joke, but I was basing it all on what else has been said here recently. My fault for not separating the two issues.

Coach

 

[radhead]

In the goodbye thread I took the defensive for another person. I probably had some unresolved issues from way back, which I had honestly thought was all in the past. Maybe others had the same issue.

But I'm not aware of anything else other than the goodbye thread and this one.

 

[CoachR64]

As far as I am concerned. it's over. The past is done. I have never been a fan of hanging onto it.

Coach

 

[Gardener101]

No, on a man. If a man does something considered to be feminine, he's breaking stereotypes, and breaking stereotypes is a very good thing.

Lets hope your future husband does not break a stereotype and end up sleeping with your male best friend then.