Though you have valid points of what "should" be........the woman submitting to her husband had absolutely nothing to do with his "Christ-likeness" or "love" for her. It was a cultural norm at the time, not a Christian mandate. (Christian being coming from Christ).

A man was to be respected and "served" simply because he was the man. A woman was NOT free of her marriage vows simply because he was not a Christian.

To answer the OP, the Bible speaks of not "usurping" authority over a man........ I would imagine that it means to self proclaim authority... I would also venture to say that when it comes to filling "offices" it is the office that holds the authority and not the person themselves........ So, Palin would be viewed as Governor, and not a woman, and a governor, president, vice president, mayor has authority over the men in their jurisdiction.

I personally do not agree with the levels of supposed "authority" people claim the Bible presents. God, then pastor, then husband, then wife, then children. A pastor was never meant to be the mediator between man and God, Christ himself was..........otherwise "Christians" should admit their religion is a fallacy. Men were supposed to go directly to Christ, but unfortunately for "Christians" the Church has twisted it around and made "Christians" view the pastor the same as Jews did the priesthood.

Anyhoo, I rambled a lot in there, I'm not even sure if I adequately answered any questions, lol.

Sorry..........I took it the wrong way.

I don't keep track of everything I read or hear.............let me just say it was an impression. Having Jesse James Jr in ur campaign.......probably had an effect.

Things like this: (link to youtube)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzYl8Rg8C0&feature=related

I could find more if I wanted to........but I won't, because everything reported has a flip side. I'm simply explaining why I said what I did............It wasn't Obama himself, but his wife in this one.

Polling African Americans..and women with Hillary, and wondering why not all African Americans didn't support Obama........is, imo, bringing race into the equation. As if voters should vote for him just because they are black and so is he.

P.S.
I'm new to politics.........I don't know everything about the candidates.........it was simply an "impression" I had..based on things I've mentioned.

And I never said that HE was.......so I'm not sure why you keep posting that??? I said, some people play it FOR him..... That bothers me, not he himself...and as I said, that isn't going to effect how I vote, either.

Oh, I know. In essence it simply causes problems in your own life, and "limits" you.

However, if they aren't being hateful or violent, but are simply uncomfortable with it.......then as I said, education and helping them understand why they feel that way is much better than judging their problem as being a moral one. (I'm not saying you did/have, but many people do.........) It isn't really a matter of "race" but is simply because they are viewed different. It exists everywhere. Doctors/Lawyers don't usually marry cashier's at a local gas station. It is a matter of being different......you are uncomfortable because your mind doesn't identify with the person.....

That is why I hate the way society has decided to deal with the problem. Civil Rights movements think they have to give minorities more "pride" more "power".....in some cases to where they believe that their "minority" is better than others. Rather than focusing on us all being the same in many ways, they emphasize the differences, and how those differences make them "better".

Note: I said some civil rights advocates, not all.

Making an all black college, is no different than an all white one...........

Having one month a year to promote black history, is imo a disgrace to black history. If it isn't incorporated ALL year round, then it is an insult.

Children being taught that people "like" them did this or that.........as if the other people who accomplished the same things are not at all like them.


Don't get me wrong, I understand the motivations, I just think that in some cases it makes the problems worse.

At one point of another in history........we have all been mistreated, raped, had our property stolen..........simply because we were weaker. All throughout history.

I do not wish to relive the sins of my forefathers.......nor do I wish for those whose forefathers have committed sins against mine to continue to relive them.

I'm hoping at some point we catch up to the fact that we are all humans........and equality means just that, that none of us deserve special attention, but at the same time we all do.

Everyone knows that being "white" is not considered to be of any "ethnic" background...........

And I didn't point blank say he was playing any card.........but there are people who support him that do so simply because part of him is "black".

It matters little to me, I will probably vote for him when elections come, because I like him better than McCain.

I can see the points, but in all reality most people are "racist" according to your definition. If by "racist" you mean making a judgement call based on race alone........then these would be considered racist:

Not dating someone because they are of a different ethnic background. (Though you could have some other valid points, such as common interests, etc. which are influenced by one's background, etc.)

In a group, deciding who you will approach to start up a conversation........(more than likely someone you can "identify" with..........)

Despite what some think........we make assumptions about people based on the "outside" all the time, why should their race or color be any different?? How they are dressed. If they are pretty or ugly. If they are fat or normal or even thin. If they are short or tall. If they have a booger hanging out their nose. Everyone has a "group" that they most identify with and therefore are more comfortable with. It is as simple as that.

I will admit that I am a bit "uncomfortable" approaching the "gangsta" type....and it doesn't matter what race they are, it is because of the way they carry themselves....and what I associate with gangs. Fear.

I am intimidated by most men, if I haven't gotten to know them. (This has probably had an effect on my "love" life, lol). I prefer for them to address me first, in a kind way.....otherwise I get a bit nervous. I have to consciously make myself talk to taller/fit/handsome men......because they intimidate me.......and for no real good reason.

Other than for "hate" reasons........... being somewhat "racist" is a normal psychological function when you haven't been around too many people of that certain race. It make you uncomfortable because you do not know what to expect or how to behave. You feel that they are "different" and in some cases people are very different based on their culture and ethnic heritage.

Am I saying you SHOULD be that way, no.........but it is natural and isn't a matter of "morality". The only way to get over it is to be more diversified in ur activities. You have to make a conscious effort to mingle........and people can pick up on that..which in turn makes them uncomfortable and may make them label you as racist when you are simply unsure of your place or how to act, or how to relate. It takes practice.

The problem is when people who are uncomfortable with a situation avoid that situation..........and then externalize the problem to be a "group" of people, rather than their own insecurities.

I must say......that when it comes to voting for president you should vote on their credentials and NOT their race.....some people have trouble with that. I like Obama, but if race doesn't matter, then why does he play the "race card"? Why even make an issue of it, or support those who do?? Just as a white person shouldn't NOT vote for Obama simply because he is not caucasion, people who are not caucasion should not vote for him simply because he is of their ethnic background..........

Anyhoo, sorry it was so long.

Clean up garbage on the side of the road??? These aren't prison inmates. In the majority of cases they are single mothers. You're going to force them to put their kids in daycare (which the state will have to pay for) so they can clean up trash on the side of the road. And call it job training?? Or claim that it is benefiting them in some way, considering you aren't willing to pay them a living wage to do it???

I could see offering legit jobs, but then you should be paying legit wages for the jobs being done..........

$255-$300 a month.........and you want them to clean up trash on the side of the road......as their job....

This went right over my head...........

Is there a way u can clarify what you mean. Sorry, my brain is a bit sluggish lately.

It depends on what is "wrong" and what is "right"..........If the person is willing to work and try with me.......or if I'm doing it myself, etc.

I don't think that any time invested is a waste........but there does come a point where it is time to move on...............it is different for every person and every relationship.

Getting what you need/want is YOUR responsiblity.........and if you are in a relationship and are unhappy.......... breaking up and moving on is not the same as cheating........

What you described is not a man not getting his needs met at home so goes somewhere else to get them, but is a selfish egotistical person..........who wants the comfort of home, but isn't willing to give up the excitement of travel.

It is not someone elses responsibility to make you happy. And here is a very important note.........are you listening............THEY CAN'T. No one else can make you happy anyway, so why should they try??

A partner adds to your happiness, not gives it to you.....

The problem with relationships is that people think others are supposed to make them happy. People don't take responsibility for themselves. If I'm upset, it must be because you are/n't doing this or that........which means I have to go find someone else. They do, only to find that their problem is STILL there.............

That is when they start to generalize and make it the "man" "woman's" fault. It isn't them is it all those around them.

If you are having problems in your life and relationships..........instead of blaming the other person/people take a good hard look at yourself.........as that is the only thing you can change anyway.

If I may add.........if a man is having a hard time finding a woman who is a "lady" then it is his choices, because we are around.

The problem lies in the fact that a lot of young men want barbie dolls........but they want those barbie dolls to not be egotistical......... Why do you think they spend hours at the gym, money on tanning, money on manicures, pedicures, etc. It is because they are egotistical.

You want a model, but you don't want the "diva" attitude............lol.

Find a real woman then, but buddy, u have to be a real man to be able to handle her.

Alot what you said Kristi was going through my mind and is true, i was just looking at it as alot of the younger generation has lost what was passed down like what your mother may of taught you


I have more to say about this thread.....but let us start here.

What my mother taught me..........

My mother taught me that when your husband calls you lazy and a *****, to suck it up and give him a silent treatment.

My mother taught me that when your husband slaps your teenage daughter across the face and bloodies her lips because she asked why you couldn't do the dishes (since she went to church that night) that you sit there and do/say nothing.

My mother taught me that when life gets hard, go sleep it off.

Ok, enough of the negatives....

My PARENTS taught me how to keep a house. How to be abusive towards children when they don't behave as you want them to, meanwhile presenting any old example you want..........

I'm of the "younger" generation...........and I'd have to say that a lot of younger women are they way they are, because we don't have a lot of true men around, either.

I'm not lumping all men my age, but I was married for seven years to someone who was not a "man" in a true sense of the word. The longest he held a job while we were together was nine months. He played video games more than he played games with the kids. Whenever something was bothering him he did a "vanishing" trick into his computer.

There is a difference between being an INDEPENDANT woman and a selfish egotistical one.

I want a man I can love/respect/honor and cherish..........but this doesn't happen just because he is of the male gender. He needs to be able to prove to me that he can take care of himself and what is his. He needs to be able to show compassion and concern for those around him. He needs to be able to let me in as much as I let him in. He needs to have control of his own emotions, but yet be able to show that he has them................. See my point.

It isn't about being an "American" woman, anyway. How many of us can afford to hire a maid and nanny?? Other women in other countries who have the funds, do the same....

I prefer to clean my own house, because I know how I want it done. I can cook anything that has a recipe, and can make something yummy out of whatever is left in the fridge (within reason).

I have yet (even the relationship that I am in, though I'm trying to work on it and help) to find a man who is stronger than I, who can stand up to me when I need it, but not be mean or cruel about it.........who can be an example to me and my children............who has his life in order..........and is under the age of my father..........................

So, some women are taught that a man is a man.........because he is born one and has a schlong...............the rest of us realize that just as being a woman doesn't make you a "lady" being born male doesn't make you a "MAN" and it takes a REAL man to make a lady want to dedicate her life/heart/soul to him.......in more than just words.

I could see your point if anything the poster had said in previous posts showed that she had "humor"..........to me it seemed to be condescending, but that could easily be "bitterness" on my part.

I must admit to being a bit "bitter" when it comes to dealing with people who send me to "hell" because I do not believe as they. I struggle with not "judging' them for their judging of others........

It frustrates me to see people "preach" love, but yet they have no idea on how to "practice" love...........but arguing with them never does any good, so I'm not sure why I do it, lol.

I became a bit judgemental myself with a few comments in my posts, and for that I apologize. I do not apologize for my "points" just any attacks I made have made in the process....

Hmmmmmmmm, I don't "know" as in "factually" but a theory is that they see things in you that they don't like about themselves.....and rather than seeing it and changing it within themselves.........they choose to judge you and try to control you.

(Just a theory, can't remember where I read it)

If I may.........having a thread that asks about preferences is going to get you BOTH sides of the equilibrium. You will have people call others "shallow" and "superficial" and others who claim it isn't "shallow" or "superficial" to have preferences.

Judgements made based on your preferences or lack thereof.....

Some people do actually have more/less than others.

Anyhoo, it is indeed superficial to judge whether or not you will date someone based on their looks. Though everyone does it. It is impossible for you to have sexual feelings for someone who you find to be ugly. However, for someone you find to be "ok" their personality may boost their looks and make them beautiful to you.

What I'm saying, is yes, everyone has preferences and even requirements (as I choose to define them differently, as is my right).......but it really doesn't do much to list them on a forum, except to separate and divide....but that is me, and this isn't the Philosophy forum.

Anyhoo........I'm done. It seems to me these kinds of threads are designed to boost certain people's egos, while possibly harming others......

And that is what I love about Jim the most...although he does take the prize for my hardest match ever.....lol lol


But, Deb, u "heart" almost everyone........

I will admit that everyone has both preferences and requirements......if not we would never have moved away from arranged marraiges........

And knowing what you do/do not want and waiting for it, is better than being in a relationship where your eye "wanders" because you aren't getting what you really want......

LOL, true enough....... I suppose I just don't understand why you would care to make it known to the general populace.......but that is me.

Agreed.........100%, actually.

Shall we look up the definition then??

Geesh. A preference is not a requirement. When someone asks you what you prefer, or to list your "preferences" in order of importance............it is not a requirement.

You prefer vanilla ice cream, but that doesn't mean that you will refuse someone who offers you chocolate.

When someone uses the word "preference" they are trying to make it sound different, or they would use the word "requirement".

If you prefer the window seat, you will still fly even if they have no window seats available.

If you prefer blondes, it means that you are naturally inclined to date them..............but you may date someone with red or brown hair.

If you absolutely know you will not date someone who is FAT, it is a requirement to be non-FAT to date you, not a preference.

People accept others who are not within the bounds of "preferences" they will not with things they "require".

A potato is a potato no matter how you pronounce it or spell it........but I do believe "preference" and "requirement" are quite different indeed.



As I said, I could care less what someone elses "preferences" or "requirements" are. Have them, you are only limiting yourself.......but at least you don't have to put up with what you don't want.............

I was just thinking about this.....

Yes, everyone has preferences.........but IF you refuse to date someone because they do not fit in line with ur "preference" then it isn't a preference it is a requirement.

I have a lot of preferences.....and they aren't worth mentioning because they mean lil in the big scheme of things. Most people will not fit a set guide of preferences.

My REQUIREMENTS are:

Compassionate
Intelligent
Responsible
Adaptable
Wise

Etc........but only I can define what these things mean to me. People are people, and should be treated as such........not like they are a commodity you can order out of a magazine.