Liam, you are young and have much to learn about women and life. I wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors in that regard. You will need it. As for now, I wish to point out the following:
1)When one turns to name calling in a debate or argument, it demonstrates frustration, lack of control, and an inability to clearly comprehend and deal with the issues. (the namecalling you used was ANAList - very clever mispelling BTW, you obviously are possessed of a razor-sharp wit
).
2) You call humility a submissive trait, which proves the point I was making. HUMILITY IS A VIRTUE and it is only those blinded by a distorted cultural perspective who would even suggest otherwise. There is nothing submissive about humility. Jesus Christ was a humble man. St. Francis of Assissi was a humble man. Ghandi was humble. Mother Theresa was humble. Many great men and leaders were known for their humility. Take the time to talk to a monk when you are in LOS and ask him about humility. Maybe you will learn something. Incidentally, monks are extremely humble, and they are at the pinnacle of the social order in LOS. Every single Thai Buddhist must wai first when he meets a monk. Even the king and the queen must wai the lowliest monk. So is humility a submissive trait? No. In LOS, the most superior people, the monks, are the most humble, and that is as it should be.
3) I suggest you try to learn about Thai culture. There again, you are misinformed and have a very distorted perspective. Humility is valued in men and in women. If we could all be more humble, what a better world we would live in. It seems as if you don't even understand the meaning of the word "humility," if you think it is an inferior trait.
4) I only used the words inferior/superior because you used them, and I can't think oa better words, since if you use higher/lower, it brings the same connotations as superior/inferior. In Thai culture some people have higher status then others. That doesn't make them superior. An older brother has a higher status relative to his younger brother. That doesn't mean that his younger brother is in any way inferior to him.
I'm sorry that you can't understand the rather simple logic of the points I made in my previous post. I will take that to mean that you are just stubborn and resistant to new ideas which you may not be comfortable with, rather than conclude that you lack the intelligence to understand simple logic.
JayBee
P.S. There is nothing automatic about women controlling relationships. They must make an effort and the man must ultimately allow them and not stand up for himself. Men, however, are weakened by their strong sex drive when dealing with women, spouses, in particular, because if they don't make the wife happy, she won't put out for them. Then they are stuck in the precarious position of ceding power, being celibate, or being an adulterer or philanderer, which the makes them vulnerable to guilt trips and charges of being an immoral, unfit person. It is a very easy game for a wife to play, if she chooses to do so. Many women will choose to do so, because they want to be in control. It is natural for most people to want to be in control. That is why the 50/50 concept is politically correct rubbish. It is also why any woman, or man for that matter, who is willing to voluntarily allow a spouse to be the head of the household and have the power to make decisions for the good of the family is often an demonstration of strength, not weakness. It takes incredible strength, discipline, and commitment to give up power, because that goes against the natural instinct most of us have, which is to want to be in control, to want to have the power. Very few men have that kind of strength. When men lose power in a relationship, it is usually involuntarily, under duress, because the woman has seized the power.
mg: Nothing automatic about that! Women, including Thai women, are no different than anyone else when it comes to feeling the desire to be in control. :biggrinlo