A return to submissive wives?

Do you think they might have a point or do you think they are just being critical?

Based on my experience, I'd say they were being critical. I've seen no reason to believe young women exhibit any more piety than young men. Again, in my experience, these criticisms are usually expressions of personal preference couched in Church-speak.

If bf insisted she cover her head in church or grow her hair out, he'd be a contol freak, and would be quickly disposed of. But if bf wanted sex, and she did too, you'd never hear about it. And lastly, if bf wanted to bag services, but she liked going to church, even for completely secular reasons, he'd be a spiritual weakling.

While I've seen no reason to credit young women with more piety than young men, I have most definately seen reason to credit them with more political savy.

Show me a young lady planning her marriage instead of her wedding, and I'll show you a woman of discernment rather than criticism.

"That being said, I have to ask "why the rush to judgment?" "

Without replying to the rest of your post (which I did read, and agree with for the most part), the 'rush to judgment' is due to my disillusionment with these esteemed public figures. Figures who experience preferential treatment and don't get penalized for actions that would condemn you & I to either a prison sentence or a life of janitorial work at best. It's one of several reasons I pay little attention to most professional sports. I mean, there are repeat drug offenders who get barely a slap on the wrist for crimes that would get you & I fired and probably thrown in jail. I simply choose the only action I can do to 'protest' - which is to not support these figures by either listening to their radio shows, watching their movies, buying their music, or attending their sporting events.

About the only 'sport' I'll watch much of is the PGA Tour. Not only do these guys generally stay 'clean' (John Daly notwithstanding), but they earn their pay directly thru their performance, not from some ridiculous guaranteed contract. I'm sure there is fault to find with them, but to me personally, I see less of it there than anywhere else.

Oh well. It was pleasant to at least end this interesting thread in a civil manner. Apologies again for displacing this hostility of disillusionment onto you.

"Rush Limbaugh for example... it's no surprise many in the chattering classes have been looking for something to "Bork" him with for years, so we won't go into their motivations. But consider the libertarians, specifically the ones who like drugs. In the finest tradition of the militant homosexuals, they want to punish him for not supporting their pet vice. To that end, they reach all the way back to 1998 to lift a single questionably contexted quote they can use to strike at him for not being their champion. His uncovering of the house bank scandal doesn't matter. His single-handed resurrection of AM radio doesn't matter. His success at teaching more Americans more about the workings of their own government than any single figure in fifty years doesn't matter. His instrumental place in taking power away from socialists of all stripes doesn't matter. His leadership in breaking the stranglehold liberals had on the dissemination of information doesn't matter. His unflinching promotion of American values doesn't matter. All that matters is he doesn't support their predilections.

What you are describing is a marked change in the way most view political and public figures. The emphasis now is on the personal and the emotional. We deride, denigrate and judge people solely on their personal life and then respond in an emotional way. Indeed, if you listen carefully, what most now appreciate in a leader is not results but rather having the ability to communicate and communicate,especially, emotions. I believe many conservative forums made the mistake of focusing inordinately on Clinton's personal sins and not his public policies and inactions that were the real disaster of his administration.

What you are describing is a marked change in the way most view political and public figures. The emphasis now is on the personal and the emotional. We deride, denigrate and judge people solely on their personal life and then respond in an emotional way. Indeed, if you listen carefully, what most now appreciate in a leader is not results but rather having the ability to communicate and communicate,especially, emotions.

So one is left asking "what changed?"

Perhaps nothing, but clearly the founders did not design our system of government to be run by the beauty contests we now use in place of elections. So what were they thinking?

I don't know what they were thinking, but I know what they were NOT thinking, and it's so entrenched, we don't think of it either.

Womens suffrage.

The emotionalism you refer to is easily accounted for by the huge influx of women into the political process that came with womens suffrage.

Now I believe women should vote, but I also believe in challenging the legitimacy of decisions to support public policies arrived at by emotion rather than reason. Men do a disservice to their country when they shake their heads instead of opposing emotionalism injected into the public arena by the women in their lives.

It is not unreasonable to expect female Americans to recognize their comfortable reliance on emotion to make decisions is incompatible with our form of republican governance. Not just because emotions are easier to manipulate than reason, but because women have already established the precept that certain natural proclivities in men need to be suppressed for the public good. And by in large, men have accepted that precept at face value.

To insist the power of the state be used to accommodate women, while denying the need of women to make accommodations on how the state gains power is not just a "heads I win, tails you lose" shell game: it's supercilious.

Marriage in today's society should be viewed as a trip to Vegas. Fun at first but the House has got the cards stacked against you and when you lose, you lose BIG. And the House ALWAYS wins. When society changes to the point that marriage is not akin to Sin City, then your point with have some validation.

That 9th grade boy has more problems than wrestling a girl in a match if he is that upset. From what I gather from your point of view, he needs this new super charged male domination change quick so as to never have to say a girl bested me at a sport. She should be cheering in a tiny skirt on the sidelines, right????

You have made your BABY an idol. No woman will ever be good enough. Talk about castration.