7 ms·

Call me old fashioned, but as a father and husband I do try to act this way: "He should always be ready to sacrifice his present personal pleasure to the future

by DougN7 11y ago

Call me old fashioned, but as a father and husband I do try to act this way: "He should always be ready to sacrifice his present personal pleasure to the future well-being of those who have the first and best claim to his regard.”

witty_username 11y ago
So are you saying that back in the old days people used to unselfish and now they aren't?
gd1 11y ago
“The same law which imposes upon the husband the duty of supporting his wife, gives him a general and paramount claim to her obedience.” I bet you don't get this bit in return.
- kitd 11y ago
  I have heard this (or something very close to it) preached in a 21st-century church.
- debacle 11y ago
  It would be sexist to assume an obligation of obedience.
- SparkyMcUnicorn 11y ago
  I wouldn't say "claiming obedience" should be accurate, but earned respect gets respect in return from any decent human being.
- MikeTV 11y ago
  "I'm the one she swore to love, honor and obey." "She swore to obey?" "Well, no...."
- zensavona 11y ago
  I wouldn't "claim obedience" from anyone, but I definitely think that (masculine) integrity inspires (feminine) loyalty. I'm not just talking about sexual loyalty, but loyalty of support and confidence. I have on multiple occasions thought about this dynamic and find it really interesting (protection/nurturing). I think it has something to do with women's superior empathetic qualities. It seems to me like (often, in my own relationships) a woman wants to be inspired by/confident in my aspirations and judgement. Obviously this doesn't encompass all relationships or people and I probably tend to attract women who reinforce my own qualities, so YMMV, but it's interesting to think about.
  - VLM 11y ago
    Primate authority comes from (at least) two methods or paths, dominance and prestige. I guess if you want a bad one line summary, dominance is management or in its more extreme form its like an overseer with a whip vs prestige is leadership or in its more extreme form its like hero worship. Because of long term memory for revenge purposes, and easy to use lethal weapons have been invented, prestige is way more important for humans than most any other animal, although some animals do use prestige signalling, just none quite as much as people. The animal world is mostly dominance ordered. Anyway, grand op is claiming prestige signaling isn't going to provide results (which is incredibly unlikely in a human pack; maybe a wolf pack, sure, or if the human participants are doin it wrong or are crazy, sure) and you're claiming prestige signalling usually leads to prestige results, so op is wrong and you're right but it doesn't matter because you're talking past each other on separate topics. Ironically it doesn't matter because as you correctly point out, dominance and prestige results are more or less the same most of the time. The hundred year old manual is talking something totally different from both of you, that there's a moral or ethical need for both results to be exactly identical or else things are going to get unpleasant because prestige means are generally way more pleasant than dominance means. She can either play along with her side of the prestige strategy or unfortunately the dominance strategy will inevitably end up getting played and that's no fun. Assuming its your responsibility to water the horses, you properly lead a horse to water and it refuses to drink, that's just not going to be fun for anyone involved, it really is the horses job or duty to drink after its been properly led. Note its not just leadership, its leadership with the positive adjectives applied; no fair weaseling out on the obedience obligation due to poor leadership excuses if by the very definition of the claim it only follows from good leadership. Good luck defining good leadership. There's also some civilization wide social contract philosophy about good leadership inherently being owed obedience by the nature of the leadership being good, and no other justification is necessary assuming the leadership is good, blah blah blah, all kind of in opposition to the concept of the divine right of kings and hereditary monarchy. To some extent this is the moral justification of democracy, you have to obey the good leader you selected, assuming its not all a sham like modern elections, etc. And this is just applying that large scale societal stuff to a tiny family, for better or worse. This makes it a scaling problem and HN loves scaling problems.
- ahoy 11y ago
  Hopefully he got the same willingness to put the family ahead of the self back from his spouse.
- DougN7 11y ago
  True, I don't, and wouldn't want it. And if you knew my wife, she'd kick my butt if I demanded it :)
ap22213 11y ago
Old fashion. :-) But, more seriously, as a counter, I've spent most of my adult life trying to be less 'manly' and more male (xy-chromosomer ). The western traditions of what it means to be 'a man' have not made my life better. Instead, they've given me anxiety, panic attacks, and caused a lot of feigned aggression, defensiveness, self medication, and regret. I'm not against tradition, and I have a lot of respect for people who try to keep traditions alive. This one's just not for me.
- Zelphyr 11y ago
  Same here. Take crying for example. In our society we're seen as weak if we cry. Except crying is a perfectly valid human emotional response. Sure, we naturally don't cry as often as women but I still can't understand how we got to the point where we have to deny ourselves a basic physiological response lest we be shunned by the other monkeys who also need and want to do it!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - jmaistre 11y ago
    > In our society we're seen as weak if we cry. Isn't this the case in most societies? My sense from history is that is only acceptable for men to cry at extreme events -- such as death of a wife/child/brother, or the loss of a kingdom. The other common trope for crying is if a peasant or low-level official is begging the forgiveness from a king who is about to terminate him. But in the modern society such tragedies happen less often. I cannot think of a time in my own adult life when crying would have been justified.
    - Zelphyr 11y ago
      Actually, I my understanding is its perfectly acceptable in many Middle-Eastern countries for men to cry openly. They'll also hold another mans hand while having a conversation with him apparently.
exit 11y ago
why should that be stated in a gendered way?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Retra 11y ago
  It shouldn't, it just is. That's the nature of quotation.
azernik 11y ago
"Some of the information is merely common sense, the sort of generic advice newlyweds might hear from well-meaning relatives today. "

by DougN7 11y ago

witty_username 11y ago

So are you saying that back in the old days people used to unselfish and now they aren't?

gd1 11y ago

“The same law which imposes upon the husband the duty of supporting his wife, gives him a general and paramount claim to her obedience.” I bet you don't get this bit in return.

kitd 11y ago
I have heard this (or something very close to it) preached in a 21st-century church.
debacle 11y ago
It would be sexist to assume an obligation of obedience.
SparkyMcUnicorn 11y ago
I wouldn't say "claiming obedience" should be accurate, but earned respect gets respect in return from any decent human being.
MikeTV 11y ago
"I'm the one she swore to love, honor and obey." "She swore to obey?" "Well, no...."
zensavona 11y ago
I wouldn't "claim obedience" from anyone, but I definitely think that (masculine) integrity inspires (feminine) loyalty. I'm not just talking about sexual loyalty, but loyalty of support and confidence. I have on multiple occasions thought about this dynamic and find it really interesting (protection/nurturing). I think it has something to do with women's superior empathetic qualities. It seems to me like (often, in my own relationships) a woman wants to be inspired by/confident in my aspirations and judgement. Obviously this doesn't encompass all relationships or people and I probably tend to attract women who reinforce my own qualities, so YMMV, but it's interesting to think about.
- VLM 11y ago
  Primate authority comes from (at least) two methods or paths, dominance and prestige. I guess if you want a bad one line summary, dominance is management or in its more extreme form its like an overseer with a whip vs prestige is leadership or in its more extreme form its like hero worship. Because of long term memory for revenge purposes, and easy to use lethal weapons have been invented, prestige is way more important for humans than most any other animal, although some animals do use prestige signalling, just none quite as much as people. The animal world is mostly dominance ordered. Anyway, grand op is claiming prestige signaling isn't going to provide results (which is incredibly unlikely in a human pack; maybe a wolf pack, sure, or if the human participants are doin it wrong or are crazy, sure) and you're claiming prestige signalling usually leads to prestige results, so op is wrong and you're right but it doesn't matter because you're talking past each other on separate topics. Ironically it doesn't matter because as you correctly point out, dominance and prestige results are more or less the same most of the time. The hundred year old manual is talking something totally different from both of you, that there's a moral or ethical need for both results to be exactly identical or else things are going to get unpleasant because prestige means are generally way more pleasant than dominance means. She can either play along with her side of the prestige strategy or unfortunately the dominance strategy will inevitably end up getting played and that's no fun. Assuming its your responsibility to water the horses, you properly lead a horse to water and it refuses to drink, that's just not going to be fun for anyone involved, it really is the horses job or duty to drink after its been properly led. Note its not just leadership, its leadership with the positive adjectives applied; no fair weaseling out on the obedience obligation due to poor leadership excuses if by the very definition of the claim it only follows from good leadership. Good luck defining good leadership. There's also some civilization wide social contract philosophy about good leadership inherently being owed obedience by the nature of the leadership being good, and no other justification is necessary assuming the leadership is good, blah blah blah, all kind of in opposition to the concept of the divine right of kings and hereditary monarchy. To some extent this is the moral justification of democracy, you have to obey the good leader you selected, assuming its not all a sham like modern elections, etc. And this is just applying that large scale societal stuff to a tiny family, for better or worse. This makes it a scaling problem and HN loves scaling problems.
ahoy 11y ago
Hopefully he got the same willingness to put the family ahead of the self back from his spouse.
DougN7 11y ago
True, I don't, and wouldn't want it. And if you knew my wife, she'd kick my butt if I demanded it :)

ap22213 11y ago

Old fashion. :-) But, more seriously, as a counter, I've spent most of my adult life trying to be less 'manly' and more male (xy-chromosomer ). The western traditions of what it means to be 'a man' have not made my life better. Instead, they've given me anxiety, panic attacks, and caused a lot of feigned aggression, defensiveness, self medication, and regret. I'm not against tradition, and I have a lot of respect for people who try to keep traditions alive. This one's just not for me.

Zelphyr 11y ago
Same here. Take crying for example. In our society we're seen as weak if we cry. Except crying is a perfectly valid human emotional response. Sure, we naturally don't cry as often as women but I still can't understand how we got to the point where we have to deny ourselves a basic physiological response lest we be shunned by the other monkeys who also need and want to do it!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jmaistre 11y ago
  > In our society we're seen as weak if we cry. Isn't this the case in most societies? My sense from history is that is only acceptable for men to cry at extreme events -- such as death of a wife/child/brother, or the loss of a kingdom. The other common trope for crying is if a peasant or low-level official is begging the forgiveness from a king who is about to terminate him. But in the modern society such tragedies happen less often. I cannot think of a time in my own adult life when crying would have been justified.
  - Zelphyr 11y ago
    Actually, I my understanding is its perfectly acceptable in many Middle-Eastern countries for men to cry openly. They'll also hold another mans hand while having a conversation with him apparently.

exit 11y ago

why should that be stated in a gendered way?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Retra 11y ago
It shouldn't, it just is. That's the nature of quotation.

azernik 11y ago

"Some of the information is merely common sense, the sort of generic advice newlyweds might hear from well-meaning relatives today. "