Morality of Financial Domination

[Zelig]

A woman who has equal weight with a man but higher muscle percentage will be stronger than that man (as in able to lift heavier weights). Do you disagree with this??.

Yes.

Men not only have more muscle, but pound for pound, their muscle is slightly stronger than a woman's -- about 5 to 10 percent, says Lou Schuler in "The New Rules of Lifting for Women." A study reported in a 1993 issue of the "European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology" attributed this strength difference to larger muscle fibers in men.

Or look at weightlifting results at the last Olympics:
Total kg results:
Top 10 75kg women: 291, 291, 269 265, 258, 246 231, 230, 223, 223
Top 10 56kg men: 293, 289, 286, 284, 277, 269, 269, 268, 268, 258

At those weight classes women are mostly lifting less than the men despite over a 30% body mass advantage.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Right now our daughter's daily chores involve feeding the dog, making her bed, cleaning her room, and putting her own dishes in the sink after each meal. She also willingly helps out with other things around the house as well, like helping my wife cook. Like I said, this kid loves to help out to the point she actually throws a tantrum if you don't let her help with the housework.

Sounds like she'll grow up to own a housekeeping company, or be the next generation's home economics expert.

Going to be kind of hard for the father to not have contact when they'd be living in the same house.

Isn't he supervised? I thought sex offenders were supposed to undergo regular checks or some other procedure to make sure they're not violating their terms of release. Or is this something that differs from state to state? I've heard of some cases where the restrictions of how close these people (who have served their time) can get to children are so tight that it's nearly impossible for them to get a job and find somewhere to live.

I would give her an allowance, but not a cash-based one. Basically, as long as she keeps up with her chores I would buy her anything she wants as long as the money is available. Trust me, this kid doesn't need an allowance because she gets enough free money from relatives. She's only three and has $400 dollars in a shoebox in her dresser. She also has an account in her name that my mother deposits money in every week that's already got a few thousand dollars in it.

I'm amazed that you allow that much cash in the house, considering how little you trust your wife. Or is this one of the things she isn't allowed to know but you feel safe revealing it here because she's not smart enough to find out your online activities?

Gotta wonder why a 3-year-old would need that much cash, anyway (at least in the house; that's something a thief would really appreciate finding). Unless she wants a designer Barbie or intends to buy out the candy aisle, I can't fathom it. Or maybe, based on your description above, she's saving for a top-of-the-line vacuum cleaner of her very own...

Not just my wife. I don't see a problem with lying to anyone as long as it serves a purpose. It has long been a belief of mine that the entirety of human civilization is based on lies and it would all come crashing down if everyone all of a sudden started being 100% honest with each other.

Would you lie to your daughter? I have to assume you would, and then I predict your inability to understand why she might thereafter have trust issues with you if/when she found you out. That's one of the things that happened with my own family. Once I found out they'd lied to me about things that were important to me, it made me wonder what else they were lying about. I never fully trusted any of them ever again.

Those are some really obscure and extremely unlikely scenarios. I don't really know how it is in Canada (you do live in Canada, right?), but it has been at least a decade since I have seen a business that has a minimum purchase limit for debit cards here in the US. And if the machine is down, then so what? If you live in a decently populated area (which we do) then there is going to be another business right down the road that has what you need and a working debit card machine.

Those are not obscure in the least. They are a daily fact of life here (yes, Canada; it says so in my location). Because of the various fees involved in debit card transactions, some businesses have a rule about minimum purchases required for debit cards. It varies, from $3 to $5 or even as high as $10 in one place. Those merchants can't fathom the idea that someone wouldn't have that much cash in their pocket or purse, and they do not bend those rules. And yeah, sometimes the machine doesn't work, or the network goes down. I've seen people leave stores empty-handed because the debit card machine didn't work and they didn't have the cash on them to pay for the stuff. And no, you can't assume that there is another business right down the road that has what you need. I guess it's not that much of a big deal if you're in a city and can jump in your car and go somewhere else. It is a big deal if you're in a small town, or if you use public transportation or you're disabled.

I didn't take issue with you discussing the topic, I took issue with you attempting to pass your opinion off as fact.

And I don't care how many marriages within your family you observed because at the end of the day you are still on the outside looking in with absolutely no practical experience in the matter. Your sample size for your observations is also severely inadequate for you to state any of your conclusions about marriage in general in a manner that portrays them as any kind of factual certainty. All I ask is that you state your opinion as an opinion and not try to talk as if you are some sort of subject matter expert on marriage.

Forgive me for assuming you would be astute enough to realize that the unwritten part of that post included "in my opinion." My mistake. Yeah, in my opinion, a real loving husband wouldn't treat his wife as you treat yours, and definitely wouldn't talk about her as you do. You speak very disrespectfully of her, and of course we have no way to know what her side of the story is.

As for my "sample size" being "inadequate," I haven't exactly lived alone in a cave all my life. Am I saying that some of the men I've known in my own life are/were untrustworthy? Yes. Am I saying all men are untrustworthy? Of course not. Am I saying that my early experiences have made me extremely cautious about men? Definitely. Did I decide to opt out of marriage because of that? Very definitely.

As for your wife's friendship with this woman who you blame for putting these crazy ideas about equality into her head, did it ever occur to you that from an outsider's perspective, your control issues can be seen as one of the classic signs of abuse? That's what it looks like to me. Your willingness to lie and deceive and sneak are other signs. Note that I am not accusing you of physical abuse. I have no reason to do that.

What reasons has your wife given for not working at an outside job? Does she believe that it's the husband's role to work and the wife's role to stay home? Does she want to stay home while your daughter is still a toddler? Have you discussed the issues involved in daycare for your daughter if your wife did get a job? It's obvious that you consider her lazy, but is she really?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Thanks Zelig, after researching the issue a little I see that I was wrong about some things. Men have more "fast-twitch" muscle fiber and women have more "slow-twitch" fiber. This means that a male muscle would be able to lift a heavier weight (one time) than an equally sized female muscle.

But since females have more slow-twitch fiber, their muscles have greater endurance. So a female muscle can work longer, bear loads for longer periods and generally outlast a male muscle of equal size. So in many ways, females are actually "stronger" than males in the ways that matter (working, hunting, farming etc) where fatigue comes in to play...which is basically everything.

Spoiler :

The Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, at the University of Colorado in Boulder in 2000 found that female muscle had 75% more endurance over male muscle. The study found that women outlasted men by an average of 75 per cent during muscle contractions under a load. But rather than some kind of motivational effect, the study found the difference was due to some feature of the muscles. In studies carried out at the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland, for example, 10 male and nine female strength athletes (powerlifters and body-builders) performed 20 maximal squat lifts, with three minutes of recovery between each lift. After the 20 lifts, the fatigued leg muscles of both males and females had lost about 20-24% of their maximal strength. However, various indicators of muscular power favoured the females. For one thing, the force-time curve an indicator of muscles ability to contract powerfully and quickly changed negatively by 28% in the males over the course of the workout but dropped by only 19% in the females. Females also recovered from the 20-lift session more quickly. One hour after the workout, female lifters leg muscles could generate about 92% as much force as before the session, whereas male muscles were just 79% as strong. Why was the fatigue greater and recovery slower in males? Part of the problem seemed to be that the male lifters nervous systems became less responsive over the course of the workout. From the first to the 20 lift, activation of leg muscles by nerve cells fell by 20-25% in males but held fairly steady in females. While its not clear why male nerve activation should deteriorate more quickly, it is clear that females lose less of their muscular power during heavy-duty resistance training and seem to recover more rapidly once a tough session is over. (Neuromuscular Fatigue and Recovery in Male and Female Athletes during Heavy Resistance Exercise, International Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 14(2), pp. 53-59, 1993)

If all we are doing is seeing who can lift that heavy rock once, then yes males have the advantage.

However, I will concede that my original argument was wrong in that strength is not only determined by muscle mass, but also by fiber type. But then again, that makes you wrong too, because you said the same thing

All this adds up to is that one of my premises were wrong, but my conclusion is still correct. The only reason men are dominant is because men have engineered themselves to be so. It is not the "natural" result of a legacy inherent physical superiority.

 

[Zelig]

All this adds up to is that one of my premises were wrong, but my conclusion is still correct. The only reason men are dominant is because men have engineered themselves to be so. It is not the "natural" result of a legacy inherent physical superiority.

I don't see any distinction between these things. Men have engineered themselves to have natural legacy inherent muscular superiority.

 

[Akka]

You think?... OK... so you can drop whatever subject you want and/or start whatever thread you want, or deem appropriate

It was a nice way to tell you : "stop derailing the thread", but if you just want to act like a smartass or a jerk, that's your problem.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't see any distinction between these things. Men have engineered themselves to have natural legacy inherent muscular superiority.

Well yes, its a snowballing problem. If we go all the way back, men wanted to be the ones to go out and hunt because that gave more familiarity with surroundings, thus more control, and more freedom. Men wanted to be physically dominant. Women have been taught for generations that they need to be smaller, so they are smaller. Men have been taught to value size and strength, and women have been taught to value males with sizes and strength. So we genetically select for large males and small females. Its all social engineering/artificial. Which is why I say its not "natural." Men have no natural right to be dominant, it is just the ages old order we set up.

It was a nice way to tell you : "stop derailing the thread", but if you just want to act like a smartass or a jerk, that's your problem.

Well apparently its your problem "Nice?"... OK, if you say so...

 

[Zelig]

Well yes, its a snowballing problem. If we go all the way back, men wanted to be the ones to go out and hunt because that gave more familiarity with surroundings, thus more control, and more freedom. Men wanted to be physically dominant. Women have been taught for generations that they need to be smaller, so they are smaller. Men have been taught to value size and strength, and women have been taught to value males with sizes and strength. So we genetically select for large males and small females. Its all social engineering/artificial. Which is why I say its not "natural." Men have no natural right to be dominant, it is just the ages old order we set up.

Seems pretty natural to me. But physical gender characteristics related to strength don't equate to any right to dominance any more than those related to hairiness, ability to give birth, bone density, etc.

 

[Tigranes]

The entire thread is beyond sad. I would not even like to comment, because it is a personal thread and we have rules against it here. The "****old" thread got locked very early in it's infancy. So I only decided to comment because of the comments of the people, who somehow sound that they are being moral by saying that financial domination is immoral.

Life without love is immoral. This is the only moral thing to say -- the rest are the consequences of lack of mutual love. One should be able to trust his wife with his life, money is a secondary issue. On that scale divorce is much worse than financial domination. I do see why OP acts the way he does -- it is not up to me to pass moral judgement, it's up to God alone. OP cares of them being together, wife's attitude sounds like "not enough". At least OP is trying to talk about morality with complete strangers risking being exposed to negativity. It does not sound that wife is seeking company of the people who would sound critical to her actions. Nay, she gets inspired by the bad example instead. Instead of criticizing that bad example to the point of severing friendship with a woman abusing her husband.

 

[Borachio]

I thought at first this was about the general aspects of those with wealth dominating the poor through financial means. Which would have been more interesting, I think.

That's what happens the world over at the moment, isn't it? Those with wealth get to order about those without it. And the corollary is: those who order the activities of others are those who claim the lion's share of the wealth.

To be honest, I'm against this way of ordering human society. Eventually, I think the human species may become sufficiently mature that this is no longer the case.

But there's precious little sign of it happening any time soon.

Apart from the God aspects, I pretty much agree with Mr Tigranes, though.

 

[Sommerswerd]

physical gender characteristics related to strength don't equate to any right to dominance any more than those related to hairiness, ability to give birth, bone density, etc.

We agree on that part. Ultimately dominance of one human being over another are a matter of the choices (equal, fair or not) of those individuals. Both the one dominating and the one being dominated have, for whatever reason decided that the position they are in is better than whatever their perceived alternatives are.

 

[Borachio]

I don't know so much. When the only possibility for the one dominated of getting fed is agreeing to the demands of the dominant one, I'd say that's not much of a choice.

 

[sophie]

Agreed, but it doesn't really pay the bills now does it? If we didn't have any money, the landlord isn't going to care how spotless my wife keeps the apartment; if we can't pay the rent then we are out.

How much money do you save by not having to hire a maid to do the cleaning for you? Or how much money do you save by not having to take time off work to do the cleaning yourself? It may not "make money" in terms of her being paid a physical salary, but it absolutely does make money by enabling the both of you to spend money that otherwise would have to be committed to something else. Same with her being a chauffeur and babysitter. Childcare services are hella expensive yo.

But this is all ignoring the fact that this is absolutely the wrong way to be thinking about marriage. It's not a financial contract. You are married to this woman because (presumably) you love her and care for her, and she likewise by you. You two are equal partners in this arrangement. If you can't trust your spouse to make reasoned decisions that you agree with, or at least can support or abide. Maybe you two don't belong together. Before calling the lawyer though I'd recommend seeking marriage counseling help. If you want the marriage to work you need to totally rethink how you approach your relationship with your wife. You aren't her parent. She is an adult, free to make her own decisions, and you ignoring that and treating her like a child is pretty [copulating] disgusting, honestly. But seeing as how you've already rallied the legal team and are talking about conflicting out lawyers (which can backfire on you too, btw) it seems to me as though the divorce is already a fait accompli at this point.

 

[Kozmos]

We agree on that part. Ultimately dominance of one human being over another are a matter of the choices (equal, fair or not) of those individuals. Both the one dominating and the one being dominated have, for whatever reason decided that the position they are in is better than whatever their perceived alternatives are.

It's not really hard to decipher, cooperation and accepting their given rules increased fitness more than trying to do it the other way around. Before settling down into farming communities men were more fit because they were more aggressive, they fought more, they moved more because of hunting (humans are endurance champs and that's how we killed prey, by simply tiring them into exhaustion if we couldn't ambush it). Why was it so? Sperm is cheap. Eggs are expensive.

Why did such social roles continue after settling down? The brain is lazy and we were still focused on making a living rather than developing ideas. By the time we could spare people to create non-essentials such gender roles had become norm and tradition, passed down from generation to generation.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why did such social roles continue after settling down? The brain is lazy and we were still focused on making a living rather than developing ideas. By the time we could spare people to create non-essentials such gender roles had become norm and tradition, passed down from generation to generation.

Well partly, but also (mostly) because men liked being in charge and started creating rules that would perpetuate the patriarchal model... But whether because Commodore has manipulated her into it or because Mrs. Commodore has a "lazy brain" as you put it, she could have left a long time ago if she did not want to accept the arrangement.

@Borachio - Do you think he is "imprisoning" her or she is just "too lazy brained" to leave? Or do you think she likes/accepts this arrangement as being reasonable and better than the alternatives? Or do you agree with some others that she is secretly already meeting with divorce lawyers? Or a sugar daddy?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Women have been taught for generations that they need to be smaller, so they are smaller.

What?!



Seriously, that's not how it works. And my male cousin's repeated attempts to brainwash me into believing that "It's a MAN'S world" when I was a child and teenager are not what caused me to end up being 5'3".

 

[Hygro]

I don't recommend marriage counseling, I recommend 1-on-1 counseling.

 

[Kozmos]

Well partly, but also (mostly) because men liked being in charge and started creating rules that would perpetuate the patriarchal model... But whether because Commodore has manipulated her into it or because Mrs. Commodore has a "lazy brain" as you put it. She could have left a long time ago if she did not want to accept the arrangement.

Liking implies choice where there realistically wasn't any. It's not like matriarchal systems don't exist in the world. I don't have an answer why there isn't more of them. Someone more specialized in related fields of study might have an idea.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Liking implies choice where there realistically wasn't any. It's not like matriarchal systems don't exist in the world. I don't have an answer why there isn't more of them. Someone more specialized in related fields of study might have an idea.

There was certainly choice in whether or not to allow women to be Pope... just one example.

 

[Kozmos]

Not really. In such a closed system there were no obvious or tangible benefits in that choice or outside factors to compel them to do otherwise.

The Great Wars were what let women in on things and their mutual cooperation and willingness to protest and effectively shut down nations. If they could do that again you'd see changes. I don't think it will happen, we are far too comfortable in our own Disney Lands. Both men and women.

 

[NovaKart]

Men might be larger on average, but that is as much about culture and mating practices as anything having to do with genetics. Google the term "attractive woman" and see how many muscular, big, tall, women you see... few/none right?... Now google "attractive man" and see all the tall, muscle bound guys that come up. I'm sure you've heard the statistic that 70% of women consider a man under 6ft (1.82 meters) tall to be unacceptable as a mate. So we as a species self select for big males and small females. Its no wonder then that men are slightly larger on average. So mens' "greater strength" is an illusion.

6 feet? That would exclude the majority of men. I wonder if the article is a bit misleading and the number is actually women's general preference, not that they would never date someone under 6 feet. I'm a bit under 6 ft and I'm the tallest man at my workplace but people here tend to be shorter than in Britain. The article said the average height for men in Britain is 5'10.