Guyver wrote:Okay, now that I have a bit of time, let's move on. If you want to start asking personal questions about me, then take it to a PM. You will not get any answers in here. I sound like I have less experience that you do simply from the way that I talk? Only a few posts and all of a sudden you know me inside and out? Walked with me every step of the way? Know all the circumstances surrounding my life which leads me to HA? Oh wise one please tell me more.
Exactly, I don't know you, that's why I want you to tell me. If you want to tell me privately, that's fine by me, but please bear in mind that you asked to reveal the same kind of information on a public post, hence publicly. I have nothing to hide, so be it.
Guyver wrote:It's not only laudable to seek advice from couples who know what they are doing, it's required. You need to weigh in their experiences with your own. I didn't say make it more important than your own flavor of doing things, but you still need it. Not putting much importance on it will prove to be a mistake on your part. You said that you have been observing your own extended family your whole life. So where is the middle ground? What have you learned from them? Are you applying that to your own marriage?
If you're still asking those questions it means you didn't read that paragraph well, either. Of course I am putting those observations and conclusions at work in my marriage. That's (part of the reason) why I am like this. If you want to call me a "feminist" because I believe in gender equality and equally shared duties and rights within the family walls, on the basis of the fact that
it worked for 3 generations in my family, then feel free. It's a very peculiar definition that only finds fertile ground on this forum, not much of the rest of the world out there.
Guyver wrote:As for your metaphor, it sounds like you still don't understand mine. I never implied that the captain be the tyrant decision maker. The first mate makes decisions too, but there are some decisions that only the captain can make. It's when the first mate is always challenging the captain's decisions is when you find war between the two. A good couple agrees on who chooses what. My fault for not extending what I meant, but please be sure to read between the lines instead of assuming something else.
A metaphor is, by its very definition, leaving things in the realm of the vague and the symbolic. You can't blame me for not giving your metaphor the exact interpretation you had in mind. To keep it real: what exactly are the decisions only the Captain is allowed to take? Moving state? Choosing jobs? Mortgage payments? Children education? I can't think of a single decision in a couple's life where the woman is "naturally" in a position of inferiority or submission with regard to the nature and quality of that decision.
Then you're making yourself a lot clearer when saying "a good couple agrees on who chooses what". Wouldn't that mean that the couple can mutually agree for the woman to be the Captain on certain things and the man on some others? Well, that's what I too meant when I mentioned the hat sharing.
The thing is, delegation of responsibility implies trust, a great deal of trust. Which leads to the elephant in room of the conversation: have you chosen to be with a woman who you can (or learned to) fully trust? Would you choose a woman because you want her to be your equal half - your fellow power rower so to speak - or because she's young and cute and, by nature or nurture, will never get too much in the way of your decision-making thus validating your masculinity and sense of authority?
Could it be that, perhaps, it's better to try and find a woman with enough wit to make good decisions and whom you can fully trust, rather than resting on the idea that all women are flawed and corrupted by feminism, or even intellectually inferior, and prepare yourself for an asymmetrical relationship no matter what?
Guyver wrote:No comments on your last paragraph because I 100% agree. However, I still think you are missing a pretty big issue here. Your solution is to adapt to feminism, modern times of what is defined as marriage and live happily ever after. My thinking is how many couples have already tried that, and then Murphy's Law kicked their asses? You can do what you want, but I will stick with what actually works.
Man, who's talking about adapting to "feminism"? To me "feminism" is a fringe cultural movement. If I respect Monica and her decisions and inputs, it's not because she's a capricious bimbo and I am beta enough to give into her ways in exchange for pu$$y, but because I know she's smart and value those decisions and inputs. In other words, to come back to that metaphor for the last time, we're on the bow deck together and we both wear that hat.
Summoning Murphy's Law is good for a joke. Couples try "that" countless times and may succeed or fail, depending on the partners' unique personalities and events surrounding the relationship. It's hard to generalise, let alone single out the evils of "feminism" as the sole reason for failure.
PM if you want.
As you may have inferred from some of my old posts, I have been married with Monica for little more than 4 years, and have known her for about 6. It's a "normal" relationship. We live in London and the fact she's Colombian doesn't appear any more exotic than me being from Italy. She has a job, I have a job. She likes high street fashion (= look gorgeous without spending a fortune), reading poetry and geeky US comedy. I like programming, reading non-fiction and controversial movies.
