Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. However I do agree with the message. Actually, I don't see how this is misogynistic. What part do you not see in real life or in your one M? If I look hard under the surface, I see this exact pattern in my M. Take off those feminist glasses first.
I don't think Deida is making a list of rules. I think someone came up with this list to paraphrase/simplify what they saw as Deida's four main points. Have you read any of the book? I didn't see it as anti- anything, personally. But that's me.
I suppose I didn't worry about whether the writing offended me, because he wasn't writing TO me, a woman. This particular book was written to/for men.
He also has a book he has written for women. I haven't read it, but it would be interesting to see if you felt the same way, reading it.
It doesn't concern me what Deida wrote because that was Cobra's list, his impression of the main points. Maybe he is not portraying Deida accurately. I don't know. But it is what Cobra believes. I simply stated the list sounded misogynistic. I wasn't personally offended by it. Never even said I was a feminist. Just questioning why Cobra told me not to SEE things that WAY.
I think I'm just going to sit around draped in a sheet and contemplating the moon. Then my H can be inspired by me.
There again he might not notice. His primary purpose is writing software, so he may not peel his eyes off the screen for long enough and I might catch a chill.
if we can be sufficient to ourselves, we need fear no entangling webs Erica Jong
I think that if you look at Dieda or Schlessinger through feminist glasses it will seem offensive. We've had this discussion before and I do think feminism has good and bad points. The original feminist movement had justifiable objectives, but I think things have pushed too far and while women think they want the extra "power" and responsibility, both Dieda and Schlessinger argue this is not the case.
Maybe you are not one of those women, I don't know. But I think there is a lot of truth in those 4 summary points I listed. If you read Schlessinger, she says almost the exact same thing but from a different perspective. My list is a very cut-down simplified summary that cuts to the core of what a man needs to understand. From a woman's perspective, her list of what is required in a relationship will be totally and completely different. There will not be one ounce of similarity. But that is because men and women have different needs and objectives.
I bet every man on here could tell you what the needs are of a woman. That message is ingrained into us by our teachers, our mothers, our MILs, our girlfriends and wives. There is absolutely no doubt about how to treat a woman to make her feel good. If a man does what the woman wants, then all should be good with the world. But it isn't, is it?
Have you ever wondered why? If you don't know, read Schlessinger. She speaks to women about the needs of men. Her message is completely different from the feminist message, but her message is one that I think almost all men will find themselves nodding their head with. A feminist may not like it, but why should she? She has been taught all her life how men should treat her and what she should expect. Anything less is heresy. But that doesn't mean men like that. They have just been taught that is how it is.
So to answer your question on why you should take off your feminist glasses - to better understand the needs of your H and help to make him happy.
Cobra, seriously .... how can you propose the model that a man's primary purpose should be making his mark on the world by whatever means suit him best while a woman's primary purpose should be supporting and encouraging him in that endeavor with focus on their relationship ... and NOT see it as relegating women to a secondary position? That's only one small step up from barefoot and pregnant, IMHO. And I'll throw it out there; I am kind of offended by it.
(although why I saw red when I first saw it is a matter I'll have to take up with myself, later)
My own particular brand of feminism is absolutely NOT of the man-hating/blaming variety, but rather states: I am an individual, unique in brain and heart, with just as much to offer the world as any other human creature; do not attempt to pigeonhole me with my sisters or relegate me to a supporting role. I view men as I view women, neither masters nor slaves, but partners and fellow travelers, brothers. Damned if I'll take off those glasses.
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
OK by me. But before you rip apart this model, you should read the book first. Those four points are not intended for you. They are intended for your H. If you don't want to understand his POV, that's fine with me.
You'll have to clarify "ETA" for me. Ok, you'll have to explain it completely, because I don't even have a good guess.
I'll admit I'm puzzled. (seriously, not sarcarstically) How can it be possible that your list of four points is not "for me" as a woman? The last one, definitely, is .... and all of them would impact me if that's how my husband lived his life. How is it possible for me to a have a "totally and completely different" list of "what is required in a relationship" and have anything other than misery for somebody in the marriage? By your argument, someone isn't going to get their needs met .....
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
