Doing what I do, I love a good argument. A well framed, thought out, intelligent debate is akin to good sex in my book. I know...I'm a geek. With that said, one of the ongoing topics of debate between George and I has been the role of women and men. Not necessarily in society...but specifically in the home. He's laid out his position in previous posts. I believe I have laid out the opposing position both to him, and in previous responsive comments. But it always makes for a good debate...So...come on all...join in the fun!
Affirmative Position - (Simply because this is the position that generally starts the debate, therefore by definition, is the affirmative position. The author makes no warranties as to the validity of this argument.) In order for a household to run decisions must be made. There will be times when decisions are not agreed upon. Therefore, there must be a final decision maker within the household. That final decision maker should be the man.
Point one. A man is not just a "man" by virtue of the fact that he was born with the correct genetalia. He must also step up to the plate. When he becomes a husband and a father he gives up selfish considerations and must then put the considerations of the family first. Therefore, a "man" is defined as the person who steps up to the plate to consider the family's needs first.
Point two. Times will arise in the course of every family's path where impasses occur. Where there is a decision which must be made. Where reasonable people may differ on what is good for the family, someone must make a decision. That person should be the pre-determined "head" of the family.
Point three. If the husband/father/man is truly acting like a "man", by definition, then he is the person best situated to consider the needs of the family when making decisions. Therefore, he is the person best situated to be the pre-determined "head of the family" and should therefore be the one to make the decisions.
Point four. All major family decisions should be discussed as a family, with each party able to submit input and opinion. However, when unable to reach a consensus, the head of the family should be the deciding vote, or the position holding veto power.
Point five, caveat. The "head of the family" does not presume specific genders, simply that in the opinion of the person who generally starts this debate, he is the one who is best situated to be the head of the family, therefore it should be him. Further, in the absence of a two adult containing family, the adult is by definition the head of the household and no further debate is needed.
Negative Position. (Same disclaimer as above). A family does not require a "head" or a "leader". A relationship in this form is a partnership comprised of the two consenting adults who have made the commitment to share life. To presume that one party has the final say and "veto" power over another in al final decisions presupposes an imbalance of power in excess to that already established in society. Promoting an imbalance of power leads to breakdown of communication, resentment, and affirms in the minds of any children present societal structures which have broken down in the past 30 years.
Point One. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human nature trends away from conflict. Eventually, there will come a time in the relationship where it is simply easier for the "man" to make a decision without having to go through the process of allowing "input" from the "woman". Thus, further marganilizing her opinion and breeding a need to escape.
Point Two. Veto power, required from the beginning, presupposes an inability to communicate. In a partnership parties must reach compromises. Compromises are reached through communication. If compromises are not required, communication becomes less essential. Further, a presupposition that communication flows will be unable to solve issues related to the family necessarily requires the belief that one party has the family's interest in mind, and one party does not. If this is a fundamental belief from the beginning then perhaps the partnership should not be formed in the first place.
Point Three. Not all decisions fall within the realm of expertise held by the head of the household. To allow decisions impacting the family unit to be made by a party, simply by virtue of the position they hold in the household, and not because of superior knowledge or expertise, is by definition not in the best interest of the family.
Point Four. If the best interest of the family is truly the issue, and it is not simply an issue of control, the family should be run as a partnership with open and honest communication. To allow veto power and absolute control in the hands of one party will not be in the family's best interest. Therefore, TURN (old term from my debate days) even if you follow the affirmative's arguments, you must by definition allow for a full and complete partnership in order to be a "man" simply because it is the only way for all decisions to not only be made with a result in the best interest of the family, but also in the process that benefits the family.
So...what do you think? I'm seriously interested. I won't tell you my opinions, as opinions are irrelevant to debate. But I'd like to know if I missed any points on either side. Further...based on logical argument and past experience, what is your opinion?
Anyone? Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I will be anxious to see how this turns out. I have a feeling that it's gonna be a male vs. female thing.
I, personally, agree with the negative point.....partnership. Unfortunately, I have yet to meet a man who agrees....thus....still single.
I must take the negative position. No one should have veto power over their partner. No one should be able to dismiss their partner's point of view. Certainly partners have diferent talents and those should be used to their fullest. I had a partner who could not be trusted with finances, so I paid the bills. I can see already that Jay has better bugeting skills than I do, so as we establish our household together, I am sure he will be in charge of maintaining the buget. At that, I also know that he would consult with me on any matters that effect us both. He already has. That all being said, I'm not sure such a partnership is possible for everyone. Another woman might be happier giving her opinion and having it considered and then letting her partner make the final call. Everyone is different. Every relationship is different. I couldn't accept anything but complete equality with my partner, but perhaps not every woman wants or needs that. I think everyone should have that option, though. If someone chooses to relinquish some of the control over their life, that is their right. It is my right to keep control.
SBS: I have learned that I would rather be single than be with the wrong man. (And I'm not just saying that because I finally found the right one!)
Oops. I thought I was spelling budget wrong.
Osquer, you're establishing a house with Jay??? WOW!! I had no idea. I need to do a better job of keeping up!
And, yes, I'd rather be single too....
SBS, well, slowly. He is going to sell this house in the spring, so there is no point in moving all my stuff right now. But, yeah it's understood that we're in the process of merging our lives.
And to tie that into the debate, things are on equal footing as far as decisions. He and I are talking about where we want to live and what kind of house we want. Luckily we have similar taste in habitats.
Yippee! Yeah Osquer!
FABULOUS!!!!!
CONGRATS!!!!!
One: Congratulations Miss Osquer.
Two: In our house it's a partnership. Unless Loki knows a hundred percent that I know more in the situation than he does. Or vice versa. (Then again, you must remember that our "gender roles" are sometimes reversed.)
Three: I don't have a third point. I'm not really debating with anyone here. ;) Come to think of it, none of are!
I think that to assume that the man, by virtue of having a penis, is better suited to be head of the household, is archaic and stupid. I would never consent to be in a marital arrangement in which both people aren't full and equal partners. And, I think both partners should have equal veto power when it comes to large financial expenditures and/or big decisions involving the family.
Compromise and collaboration, versus hierarchy.
Post a Comment