Define a REAL Woman.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ah, no that's not what I meant.

I don't get it where submissive = putting yourself last. Submissive is something else altogether.

Heaven forbid we actually take your words literally .

Putting yourself last means you don't even think of your wants until you take care of everyone else's. Hence, you "put yourself last".

[Ben Kenobi]

Heaven forbid we actually take your words literally .

Putting yourself last means you don't even think of your wants until you take care of everyone else's. Hence, you "put yourself last".

As for the literal definition

unselfish - disregarding your own advantages and welfare over those of others

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unselfish

I still don't understand why people are interpreting it apart from what the dictionary says.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I see it as choosing to put others first. You are aware of your own wants and desires but you put them ahead of yours. Same thing as being unselfish.

You've chosen to yourself last. That means taking care of everyone else's needs before your own, all the time. Pretty damned close to submissive. And a far cry from simply unselfish.

Then again, it seems you seem to want a wife that cooks and stays at home raising babies, so making her wants be last seems to fit the model of the 1950s homemaker .

[Ben Kenobi]

You've chosen to yourself last. That means taking care of everyone else's needs before your own, all the time. Pretty damned close to submissive. And a far cry from simply unselfish.

Submission is only to one person, not to everyone.

Then again, it seems you seem to want a wife that cooks and stays at home raising babies, so making her wants be last seems to fit the model of the 1950s homemaker .

Ah, so it comes out the real reason why people don't like what I said.

Really, number 5 is just as important as any of the others. Yes, I think it's important for women to find fulfillment in these things, and yes I am aware that it is an unpopular standpoint.

Flame away.

Do note I would rather have someone who would tell me off when I was wrong and who was smart, prefereably smarter then me.

I don't see where 'barefoot and pregnant' comes into that. I guess that's what all the smart ladies are doing nowadays.

[b etor]

Originally posted by LordShiva


What a horrible thing to demand of someone.

qtf

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Submission is only to one person, not to everyone.

Errr... if telling yourself that helps you sleep at night . You can be submissive to a group of people (ie, slaves), not just one person.

Really, number 5 is just as important as any of the others. Yes, I think it's important for women to find fulfillment in these things, and yes I am aware that it is an unpopular standpoint.

Some of us actually believe that it should be up to the woman as to what she finds fulfilling . If that's staying home and raising kids, fine. But saying she has to in order to be a "real" woman is, of course, misogynistic. Then again, I'm not really surprised you'd say so.

I can cook pretty well and if the a woman cannot do so as well as me, then I find nothing wrong with her not cooking and don't think of her as less of a "real" woman. Likewise if she doesn't want to have children.

[Ben Kenobi]

Errr... if telling yourself that helps you sleep at night . You can be submissive to a group of people (ie, slaves), not just one person.

True but that's wrong, and not something I would support.

Some of us actually believe that it should be up to the woman as to what she finds fulfilling .

The question is what makes a 'real' woman. I know the women aren't shy to say that they have expectations for their men. This is an ideal, first and foremost. You might not agree with it, but that's what this thread is about. You might be horrified that I think it makes someone a real woman to want to cook and look after a family, but that's your right.

If that's staying home and raising kids, fine. But saying she has to in order to be a "real" woman is, of course, misogynistic. Then again, I'm not really surprised you'd say so.

In your opinion perhaps. Just because you disagree what someone has as an ideal doesn't mean that I hate women. How is it hating women to say that a real one should want to cook and look after a family?

Actually, I expected to take flack. I hardly believe that the same women you are looking for will be the ones that I like, which is just fine by me.

I can cook pretty well and if the a woman cannot do so as well as me, then I find nothing wrong with her not cooking and don't think of her as less of a "real" woman. Likewise if she doesn't want to have children.

Not the point. I worded things the way I did for a reason. First off, the key word is the desire. If someone is a great cook and hates cooking for her family, that is a bad thing. Someone who is a not so great cook, but puts her heart and soul into it, now that's what I'm talking about. Same with wanting a family and looking after one. The desire is everything here.

Now you might believe that a real woman is someone who refuses to have kids, who believes that they pollute the planet and that they are a burden. I think a real woman is one who wants a family and enjoys looking after them when they do have one, and I know a few who would agree with me here.

Feel free to disagree, I know plenty of folks who do. But it doesn't mean I hate women when I say that this ought to be the ideal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The question is what makes a 'real' woman. I know the women aren't shy to say that they have expectations for their men. This is an ideal, first and foremost. You might not agree with it, but that's what this thread is about. You might be horrified that I think it makes someone a real woman to want to cook and look after a family, but that's your right.

Having "expectations" and what makes a "real woman" are two different things.

Plenty of women can think someone is a "real man", but he doesn't meet her expectations. They aren't the same thing.

In your opinion perhaps. Just because you disagree what someone has as an ideal doesn't mean that I hate women. How is it hating women to say that a real one should want to cook and look after a family?

Oh, I think having a belief that a "real woman" should want to basically take care of the man (why does she have to cook and look after the family to be a real woman? Why can't you do it? Or would that not make you a 'real man' in your mind) is not a very respectful view towards women.

I'd imagine that a real woman would be able to make her own choices on whatever she'd want to do. And a real woman can be one who stays home and takes care of the kids or one who is out in the world and has the husband take care of the kids. Both can be and are real women. Just because one isn't a 1950s stereotype subservient man-slave woman doesn't mean she isn't a real woman.

And that's why your comments are insulting to LS, b etor, myself, etc.

Not the point. I worded things the way I did for a reason. First off, the key word is the desire. If someone is a great cook and hates cooking for her family, that is a bad thing. Someone who is a not so great cook, but puts her heart and soul into it, now that's what I'm talking about. Same with wanting a family and looking after one. The desire is everything here.

Yes, the desire to be a servant to the man. A real woman doesn't have to want to be a second class person who "puts themselves last" for your benefit.

Why exactly is it a bad thing if someone who is a great cook hates cooking for the family? Cooking IS work, you know? It ain't all fun and games. Some people like it, of course, but plenty of people don't. It takes time and effort. Just because someone says you are great at cutting the lawn, doesn't mean you are an ass if you hate cutting the damned lawn!

And why in the Hell can't you cook?

Now you might believe that a real woman is someone who refuses to have kids, who believes that they pollute the planet and that they are a burden. I think a real woman is one who wants a family and enjoys looking after them when they do have one, and I know a few who would agree with me here.

Why can't a real woman be both? Why do we have to pigeon hole a real woman into a narrow set of ideals and life goals? Why can't a real woman make her own choices of how to lead her life and what goals she wants?

If you'll note, most people defined a real woman based on minor interpersonal relationships with men. Life goals really doesn't enter into it. Because real woman can choose their life goals.

Feel free to disagree, I know plenty of folks who do. But it doesn't mean I hate women when I say that this ought to be the ideal.

Sounds to me like you do.

[Wezil]

Ben - Have you talked with Lancer? He may be able to help with your quest.

[Wezil]

Oh and the actual REAL Women website.

http://www.realwomenca.com/

[Dis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Bingo. Unselfish is fine. Putting yourself last is being a slave to someone else. Think about "Coming to America" and the wife that Eddie Murphy's parents try to set him up with in Zamunda.

that chick was hot, sign me up. Though I could see how that would get tiresome after a while. But I think I could put up with a few decades of that.

[SmartFart]

Originally posted by rah
AND Of course, if they're a good cook and can help me keep the place clean. Many +s.

1. No Nag
2. Good Cook
3. Ready to get ...you know...!

In that order.

[Ben Kenobi]

Having "expectations" and what makes a "real woman" are two different things.

Plenty of women can think someone is a "real man", but he doesn't meet her expectations. They aren't the same thing.

Oh really? So a real man is someone who leaves his woman unsatisfied?

I was there for the other thread. If you say a real man is Clint Eastwood, why can't you say that a real woman is June Cleaver? Why is one good, while the other is bad? That I don't get.

Oh, I think having a belief that a "real woman" should want to basically take care of the man (why does she have to cook and look after the family to be a real woman? Why can't you do it? Or would that not make you a 'real man' in your mind) is not a very respectful view towards women.

You're making a few assumptions here. You seem to see cooking as a chore that ought to be shared equally. Now, what if you saw it as a blessing to cook, as something that you liked to do? Changes the picture now doesn't it?

I have no problems cooking and making some decent meals. I've made a roast and a turkey dinner before. The question is why would I take something fun away from someone else? I think a real man ought to be able to cook a decent meal for himself.

I'd imagine that a real woman would be able to make her own choices on whatever she'd want to do. And a real woman can be one who stays home and takes care of the kids or one who is out in the world and has the husband take care of the kids. Both can be and are real women. Just because one isn't a 1950s stereotype subservient man-slave woman doesn't mean she isn't a real woman.

Wow, so it's ok to make a choice so long as you aren't a subservient man-slave! Some choice there, and really open minded. Look, if you sincerely believed that it was good for a woman to stay home and look after her family, then you wouldn't be calling such a state as 'subservient man-slavery'.

Oh, and btw, I didn't say a thing about staying at home and looking after your kids. I said two things. One, that she enjoys cooking, and two, that she wants a family of her own, and doesn't see children as a burden. Where did I say that she had to stay home to do either?

And that's why your comments are insulting to LS, b etor, myself, etc.

Oh, fair enough the tribe has spoken so we know truth is at hand.

Yes, the desire to be a servant to the man. A real woman doesn't have to want to be a second class person who "puts themselves last" for your benefit.

So serving others makes you a second class person? Wow. I hate to see what you are like in a restaurant to your server. I think it's very important that people learn to be unselfish and put the concerns of others above their own. I also believe this is very much reciprocal. You seem to be seeing this 'serving' as a one way deal.

Why exactly is it a bad thing if someone who is a great cook hates cooking for the family? Cooking IS work, you know? It ain't all fun and games. Some people like it, of course, but plenty of people don't. It takes time and effort. Just because someone says you are great at cutting the lawn, doesn't mean you are an ass if you hate cutting the damned lawn!

Ok. Now you can see how it is like night and day when someone is no longer doing a chore, but doing what they love? That's my point. I've been there, seen enough and I've seen the other side, and it makes a huge difference.

Why can't a real woman be both? Why do we have to pigeon hole a real woman into a narrow set of ideals and life goals? Why can't a real woman make her own choices of how to lead her life and what goals she wants?

Life goals, ok. All I've said in very broad terms, have a family and enjoy cooking. Those are not pigeonholes, but broad strokes that make a big difference. Did I say that a woman could not work outside the home? No. You read what I said and automatically interpreted it to be something quite different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Oh really? So a real man is someone who leaves his woman unsatisfied?

I was there for the other thread. If you say a real man is Clint Eastwood, why can't you say that a real woman is June Cleaver? Why is one good, while the other is bad? That I don't get.

Ask a bunch of women if a dumb as rocks Clint Eastwood type is a "real man" (they'll usually say yes, btw). Then ask if that sort of man matches her expectations.

You're making a few assumptions here. You seem to see cooking as a chore that ought to be shared equally. Now, what if you saw it as a blessing to cook, as something that you liked to do? Changes the picture now doesn't it?

So "real woman" have to see cooking as a blessing and something you like to do? Wow. So any woman who doesn't like to cook isn't a real woman?

I have no problems cooking and making some decent meals. I've made a roast and a turkey dinner before. The question is why would I take something fun away from someone else? I think a real man ought to be able to cook a decent meal for himself.

Oh yes.. it's the old "it's fun for her" argument.

Wow, so it's ok to make a choice so long as you aren't a subservient man-slave! Some choice there, and really open minded. Look, if you sincerely believed that it was good for a woman to stay home and look after her family, then you wouldn't be calling such a state as 'subservient man-slavery'.

So, you really think that the 1950s housewives were making a choice?

And after the 13th Amendment, blacks who stayed on the property and worked as they did as slave for piddling amounts were making a fully informed and fair choice. Yep. That couldn't have been somewhat of a slave like existence, could it?

Oh, and btw, I didn't say a thing about staying at home and looking after your kids. I said two things. One, that she enjoys cooking, and two, that she wants a family of her own, and doesn't see children as a burden. Where did I say that she had to stay home to do either?

I'm betting that you may not approve of the woman who has the kids and then sends them to day care 2 months after she has them. Taking care of the kids requires someone to stay at home.

And why do "real women" have to enjoy cooking and want families? So women who don't want families aren't real women? What a crock!

So serving others makes you a second class person? Wow. I hate to see what you are like in a restaurant to your server. I think it's very important that people learn to be unselfish and put the concerns of others above their own. I also believe this is very much reciprocal. You seem to be seeing this 'serving' as a one way deal.

I think you simply can't wrap your head around what YOU WROTE! Putting yourself last does indeed make you into a second class person, because you are acknowledging that your wants and desires don't matter if they conflict with ANYONE else's. But if they do, and you pick your wants... well that's not putting yourself last, now is it?

Ok. Now you can see how it is like night and day when someone is no longer doing a chore, but doing what they love? That's my point. I've been there, seen enough and I've seen the other side, and it makes a huge difference.

Apparently to you a "real woman" must love these things you've decided they must. Otherwise, they aren't a "real woman".

Life goals, ok. All I've said in very broad terms, have a family and enjoy cooking. Those are not pigeonholes, but broad strokes that make a big difference. Did I say that a woman could not work outside the home? No. You read what I said and automatically interpreted it to be something quite different.

It's actually called 'reading between the lines'.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think you simply can't wrap your head around what YOU WROTE! Putting yourself last does indeed make you into a second class person, because you are acknowledging that your wants and desires don't matter if they conflict with ANYONE else's. But if they do, and you pick your wants... well that's not putting yourself last, now is it?

QFT.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'd want someone who put herself last always.

always (adv): at all times; all the time and on every occasion

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I still don't understand why people are interpreting it apart from what the dictionary says.