Why don't women make the first move?

[cvp12gh5]

Are you saying that men are more given to using overt aggression whilst women are more given to using covert aggression?

(poison has always been seen as a womans weapon!)

This made me smile.

I think that women in that specific type of environment may resort to using this tactic (o.a.) since anything else would be looked down on or cause trouble for them. That doesn't mean that this is ingrained into their personality at birth. It's a tactic used to have some needs met without looking like it was their idea. I have seen men use this tactic.

I don't think all men are (o.a.). But I am from the u.s. In other places maybe. I don't know.

 

[SpecialEdition]

Now, you are incorrect again, refusing to see something so simple.
I think all men are mentaly stronger then women. Why? Because they are men, not women. This is to say they are stronger simply in the virtue of being men and not women...why? because the nature of a man is different and stronger then the nature of a woman.
Imagine two ships. One is big, huge (the male), while the other one is small (the woman). Now, even when the big ship gets down and is unable to function, it is very true that the big ship is still bigger and stronger then the small ship, even if its unable to function.
Can you get this?
Its not something about what you can do as a woman, or something men can do as men, to change something in their very nature. Its about what makes a man a man, and what makes a woman a woman. Its the stuff that makes a woman, and the stuff that makes a man. And althought there are huge similarities, because both men and women are from the race we call humans, there is still fundamental differences, and one of them is that men are stronger then women, and somehow, wether you like it or not, more proud creatures.
Now if the instant reaction of you at the idea that this might be true (just that it might be true, not necessarely that it is) is one of offense and somehow of a inferiority complex, it proves that your understanding lacks sound reason.
If I would to take offense at something bigger and higher then me, I would be a fool. There is nothing to be ashamed off on my part, because my very nature is different then that of that being who is more complex and stronger then me. Its not about something I can do or i can not, its just how things are. And when I understand this, I realise that I need to be proud of who I am, and not feel inferior to anything, not even of those who are higher then me.
I hope you can understand this, if not, I'm not beating my head to explain it anymore.

I can understand what you are trying to say in your posts but I don't think it's coming off very well. It is easy to stay what you think "is" but you do have to back it up with better examples than this. You might say:

Typically, males tend to be physically stronger than women. There are exceptions to the rule, but physiologically men are primed for certain physical feats that women, for the most part are not. While women MAY be capable of beating a man in an arm wrestle, more likely than not she will not be able to. However, that same woman who could not beat the man in the arm wrestle may actually be much physically stronger than other women in the same fight. She is still exceptionally strong considering how many people she is stronger than, but there is also someone stronger than her. Likewise, the man who beat that woman at the arm wrestle may be strong in comparison to her, but there are likely countless other men who are much stronger than he is. Physical strength is a scale. It just may be that the majority of men fall on one side and the majority of women may fall on the other. That does not mean there cannot be cross over, but I do think for the most part that yes, in situations like this men can be stronger.

As for emotional and mental strength, I think that depends also on what you define as strong. It may be that men and women both have mental and emotional weaknesses. It may be perceived that men tend to fall prey to their pride and swallow those weakness so they can continue to forge on. It may be that women might be more prone to share those feelings and stop to indulge them. In that sense, it MAY seem that men are mentally and emotionally stronger because for the most part their pride forces them to continue to perform in their environment despite them. It may seem that women are weaker because they more openly acknowledge and share what they are struggling with. However it does not necessarily mean that women are incapable of performing tasks. However, on a wider social scale women do tend towards feelings sharing and working through this via a sense of community. Some may see this open vulnerability as strength, as there is less of a fear of sharing. Some may perceive men as weak because they have the fear of sharing their mental and emotional weakness. It's not right or wrong either way. It comes down to personal beliefs and opinions.

I DO believe that many places in the world are set up in favour of women because of how things were set up in the past: that is the man financially provides and the woman relies on the man to essentially clothe, shelter and feed her. She must nurture and provide within the home, but without the man she may not have a home to perform these tasks in or would have to go into the work force. In North America typically women are more than capable of providing for themselves but the legal system is set up to provide for them out of a man's pocket, even if she initiates divorce or even if certain circumstances are HER fault. It's not that the woman is weak and needs this, but many women take advantage of it. I think that is weakness of character more than anything.

Is weakness of character what you are trying to get at?

 

[muir]

I think that's what it really comes down to.

Everyone's feathers get ruffled when they talk about the spread of Islamic beliefs, which of course go against many Western ideals, often citing the militant 'cramming down of beliefs down the throat' and leaving no room for people to think for themselves and be who they are being the most horrifying, but Western society has done the same thing... and continues to do the same thing. It demands that people think and feel and operate the same way the world over.

The thing is, the West dresses it up as justice and freedom and equality... when it is anything but. Again, our culture--Western culture-- is a heady mixture of contradictions and confusion that makes it very difficult to think clearly. Everything is in a constant state of flux, as @muir mentioned, which feminism as a hyper post-modern philosophy does indeed embrace.

Equality for women does fall under the umbrella of feminism, and I am all for the tenants of the philosophy that call for equal rights such as access to education, health, law, equal pay, autonomy over one's physical body and a woman's right to choose, but that is NOT ALL that feminism is. At least, not entirely. When you're arguing for equality, you're only arguing for one aspect of feminism. Feminism as a school of thought emphasizes the fluid, genderless, sexless, formless potential of the open womb versus the solid shape, weight, form and structure of the phallus. It is quite literally a philosophy of formlessness and chaos, and in itself, remains rather ironically sexist in that it permanently ascribes these traits to the archetypal feminine. THIS is why it's called 'feminism' not 'equalism.'

At which point one must be VERY careful when they sit down and critique feminist thought. Are you talking about women's issues in social justice or are you talking about a school of thought? Given how mainstream culture has chosen to embrace it, these two can sometimes be mutually exclusive.

Either way, no philosophy is ever the untouchable golden goose that is all together perfect and blameless and that must be accepted for the greater good without question or opposition, because just as there are very valid arguments for and against traditional patriarchy and what it represents, there are also very valid arguments for and against feminism and what it represents. Indeed, feminism as a philosophy would in fact EMBRACE this perspective, yet, we're kind of seeing the opposite happening.

Personally, if you're taking a binary view on ANYTHING in life (e.g. if you're not feminist, that means you hate women and you're a despicable human being) you're in big trouble. Bonus if you're someone who claims to ascribe to a post-modernist philosophy rather than a traditionalist perspective. If you're walking around trying to cram ideas down people's throats and ostracizing them for having different perspectives, while at the same time preaching the right to choose, I don't think you understand irony.

Agreed...except you expressed it better than i did!

I think you're touching on something really important here

This idea of the energy of the word 'feminism'...it is weighted as you say to the feminine

I agree that what some people claim 'feminism' is is not what is manifesting in our society; the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is tasting kinda sour right now for a lot of people!

 

[muir]

This made me smile.

I think that women in that specific type of environment may resort to using this tactic (o.a.) since anything else would be looked down on or cause trouble for them. That doesn't mean that this is ingrained into their personality at birth. It's a tactic used to have some needs met without looking like it was their idea. I have seen men use this tactic.

I don't think all men are (o.a.). But I am from the u.s. In other places maybe. I don't know.

Sure after all it was a man who gave his name to Machievellian behaviour

My theory is that empathy or rather lack of it plays a large part in such matters

I'd like to think that a woman would be better walking away froma situation then waging war through manipulation because i think its only by voting with our feet that we will change the world

I think the warrior mindset exists in both sexes but perhaps manifests in different ways...both of which can be incredibly destructive, but i think its worth baring this in mind when some feminists demonise men for agression; aggression can be expressed in different ways

 

[LucyJr]

I can understand what you are trying to say in your posts but I don't think it's coming off very well. It is easy to stay what you think "is" but you do have to back it up with better examples than this. You might say:

Typically, males tend to be physically stronger than women. There are exceptions to the rule, but physiologically men are primed for certain physical feats that women, for the most part are not. While women MAY be capable of beating a man in an arm wrestle, more likely than not she will not be able to. However, that same woman who could not beat the man in the arm wrestle may actually be much physically stronger than other women in the same fight. She is still exceptionally strong considering how many people she is stronger than, but there is also someone stronger than her. Likewise, the man who beat that woman at the arm wrestle may be strong in comparison to her, but there are likely countless other men who are much stronger than he is. Physical strength is a scale. It just may be that the majority of men fall on one side and the majority of women may fall on the other. That does not mean there cannot be cross over, but I do think for the most part that yes, in situations like this men can be stronger.

As for emotional and mental strength, I think that depends also on what you define as strong. It may be that men and women both have mental and emotional weaknesses. It may be perceived that men tend to fall prey to their pride and swallow those weakness so they can continue to forge on. It may be that women might be more prone to share those feelings and stop to indulge them. In that sense, it MAY seem that men are mentally and emotionally stronger because for the most part their pride forces them to continue to perform in their environment despite them. It may seem that women are weaker because they more openly acknowledge and share what they are struggling with. However it does not necessarily mean that women are incapable of performing tasks. However, on a wider social scale women do tend towards feelings sharing and working through this via a sense of community. Some may see this open vulnerability as strength, as there is less of a fear of sharing. Some may perceive men as weak because they have the fear of sharing their mental and emotional weakness. It's not right or wrong either way. It comes down to personal beliefs and opinions.

I DO believe that many places in the world are set up in favour of women because of how things were set up in the past: that is the man financially provides and the woman relies on the man to essentially clothe, shelter and feed her. She must nurture and provide within the home, but without the man she may not have a home to perform these tasks in or would have to go into the work force. In North America typically women are more than capable of providing for themselves but the legal system is set up to provide for them out of a man's pocket, even if she initiates divorce or even if certain circumstances are HER fault. It's not that the woman is weak and needs this, but many women take advantage of it. I think that is weakness of character more than anything.

Is weakness of character what you are trying to get at?

When I say mentaly strong, I'm not reffering to emotionless men, hard as steel and all that type of nonsense.
Its not about character either. Character is composed of virtues and vices...but there are women who are more courageous then men, (like ESTJ women are).

I"ll writte more when I get home to my computer.

 

[SpecialEdition]

When I say mentaly strong, I'm not reffering to emotionless men, hard as steel and all that type of nonsense.
Its not about character either. Character is composed of virtues and vices...but there are women who are more courageous then men, (like ESTJ women are),

Okay. I am just looking for examples of what you mean by mentally strong then so that everyone can more clearly see your point. I have a feeling there may be some language barrier so maybe the underlying point you are trying to make is not coming across to some people.

 

[Delta]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]. I don't believe there is such a discrepancy where all men can be described in one way and then women are tiered. It doesn't match reality.

The control of women is the ultimate way to control a society. The idea of whether women or men are the same or different isn't the issue in my mind. My own take on things is that there is a division where some are easily held in the solar plexus area of animal type desires and some are not, regardless of gender. It is always down to the individual to make sure they read the usually obvious signals and be true to themselves. Who initiates is a red herring. It is a shared inherent position present in the balance or absence of spiritual advancement between the two; we attract what we are.

 

[sassafras]

Agreed...except you expressed it better than i did!

I think you're touching on something really important here

This idea of the energy of the word 'feminism'...it is weighted as you say to the feminine

To be clear, feminism is the philosophy of the Nebulous Other that is represented by the womb and it is everything something is not. It does indeed encompass everything and everyone, including men, women, children, race and all and everything else that is no the rigid essentialism of the patriarchy and colonialism. The vagina is the archetypal emptiness, something that must be filled and defined. If it is not defined, it must be conquered and brought to heel, or otherwise destroyed.

This gendered archetype leaks into the attitudes that society has about women as individuals. Women are seen as weaker, passive, subservient with no minds of their own save for being the carrier and vessel for the future generation. This also extends to the men that are ' not our men' which, through the process of Othering, are described as either 'primitive and irrational' or 'too soft, too weak nancy boys....' which, of course, are all negative aspects of the feminine.

It IS necessary to look at the world through this perspective lens, because it brings into sharp focus where our dividing lines are and where conflict lay. Dismissing feminism as something basically evil because it is associated with critical theory and marxist thought is not necessarily right. It's the consequences that must be considered, both in a heavy patriarchal society and a hyper-feminist one.

I agree that what some people claim 'feminism' is is not what is manifesting in our society; the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is tasting kinda sour right now for a lot of people!

Because people parrot each other and skim wikipedia and think they understand what the fuck they're talking about. Breadth of knowledge is never going to be the same as depth of knowledge.

True equality requires balance. Feminism is about negation, the abolishment of boundaries and preconceptions so that we stand as individuals that contribute to a whole rather individuals that belong to and are defined by the whole. In this sense, yes, we are equal simply because we have not yet been measured. We are blank slates. We are the vast potential of the womb because we are unknown and fluid. We are everything and nothing at once. But that is the state of birth and we do not stand in one place, and feminism fails to draw any boundaries or ways to describe a way forward that acknowledges the human need for definition and measure. The upside is a a social conscious and an open mind. The downside is no way of making a decision or commitment.and a constantly re-routing back to square one.

Current feminism, as it is practiced, is more focused on negation with little eye to the future or the social and psychological consequences of falling down the rabbit hole of endless potential. I can see why it makes people with socially conservative values very, very nervous. It provides no certainty. Not even the promise of such.

 

[muir]

To be clear, feminism is the philosophy of the Nebulous Other that is represented by the womb and it is everything something is not. It encompasses everything and everyone, including men, women, children, race and all and everything else that is no the rigid essentialism of the patriarchy and colonialism. The vagina is the archetypal emptiness, something that must be filled and defined. If it is not defined, it must be conquered and brought to heel, or otherwise destroyed.

This gendered archetype leaks into the attitudes that society has about women as individuals. Women are seen as weaker, passive, subservient with no minds of their own save for being the carrier and vessel for the future generation. This also extends to the men that are ' not our men' which, through the process of Othering, are described as either 'primitive and irrational' or 'too soft, too weak nancy boys....' which, of course, are all negative aspects of the feminine.

It IS necessary to look at the world through this perspective lens, because it brings into sharp focus where our dividing lines are and where conflict lay. Dismissing feminism as something basically evil because it is associated with critical theory and marxist thought is not necessarily right. It's the consequences that must be considered, both in a heavy patriarchal society and a hyper-feminist one.



Because people parrot each other and skim wikipedia and think they understand what the fuck they're talking about. Breadth of knowledge is never going to be the same as depth of knowledge.

True equality requires balance. Feminism is about negation, the abolishment of boundaries and preconceptions so that we stand as individuals that contribute to a whole rather individuals that belong to and are defined by the whole. In this sense, yes, we are equal simply because we have not yet been measured. We are blank slates. We are the vast potential of the womb because we are unknown and fluid. We are everything and nothing at once. But that is the state of birth and we do not stand in one place, and feminism fails to draw any boundaries or ways to describe a way forward that acknowledges the human need for definition and measure. The upside is a a social conscious and an open mind. The downside is no way of making a decision or commitment.and a constantly re-routing back to square one.

Current feminism, as it is practiced, is more focused on negation with little eye to the future or the social and psychological consequences of falling down the rabbit hole of endless potential. I can see why it makes people with socially conservative values very, very nervous. It provides no certainty. Not even the promise of such.

So what you're saying is that we need the penis and the vagina working together? Feminism is unbalanced...half the equation

Order from the chaos

 

[sassafras]

So what you're saying is that we need the penis and the vagina working together? Feminism is unbalanced...half the equation

Order from the chaos

If you want to boil it down that way, feminism as it is being expressed is half the equation, yes. As is patriarchy. Either extreme doesn't work.

 

[LucyJr]

Let's not beat the problem around. Straight to the point [MENTION=12070]Delta[/MENTION].

 

[muir]

Ahh the great cosmic dance!

The constant interplay between male and female energies!

We should as a society be living in celebration from one moment to the next....it's kinda sad that we're not!

I suppose it's upto me as an individual to do that lol

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=12327]Anywhere But Here[/MENTION]

I see that you keep putting the problem on my background.
We are not that behind americans, you know. We have TVs, cable, wireless and fast cars from Germany, probably more expensive then american cars.
The show is not that big like in U.S, but romanian people have heart, something which I didn't saw in americans, to be honest.

I work in a ultra-central restaurant in my city, Sibiu, a very strong turistic center in our country. I meet dosenz of americans daily, men and women alike, along with your hot girls (supposedly).
You know what is the most striking difference between americans and romanians? Its about genuinety, which is pretty rare in americans...trust me.
Come to our country in a sunny morning and you will see the difference...althought we are more poor, we have, paradoxicaly more.

 

[LucyJr]

I don't think @Anywhere But Here is arguing that there are no general biological-based differences between men and women that contribute to generalized ideas about what women are like and what men are like, only that these traits are not universal and that the problem with weaving them into the fabric of our culture necessitates that THIS collection of traits is essentially feminine and that THIS collection of traits is essentially masculine. This kind of attitude creeps into social construction of gender roles that may marginalize those men and women that do not naturally fit into those boxes. Does this make them any less man or woman? What about the fluid, nurture-based aspects of our lives and personality? Why must they be shaped and slotted into categories solely because of what is between our legs? Essentially, there is a spectrum. On one extreme, we have the eternal masculine and on the other end we have the eternal feminine dictated by archetype, but instead of moving toward the middle that a balanced viewpoint would require, men and women are encouraged to pursue the ends to keep a binary and separate perspective on what man vs woman is.

At this point, this stops being about what is essentially man or woman, but what is socially constructed to be man or woman. There is nothing natural about it. The only natural is that which approaches the middle without guide or structure.

As for whether men are mentally stronger than women, I am assuming here that you mean that men are naturally more rational and less dictated by emotion rather than specifically meaning intelligence. I would argue that this is one of those aspects of men and women that is dictated in three parts: by biology (our hormones do play a role in the emotions we frequently experience and thus, the opportunities we're given to get a grip on those same emotions), by genetics and by nurture. We know the brain is incredibly plastic and that how we're brought up plays a huge, HUGE role in how our minds develop. If society expects women to behave in one way and men to behave in another, naturally, the mind will adjust to those expectations. There is, however, nothing ESSENTIALLY feminine or masculine about the human brain apart from the way it is molded. In other words, this particular difference between men and women is almost entirely a gender construct.

No.
I can understand up to a point that you read some biology or evolutionary material, where they say that basicaly men and women are the same. They have to say that, otherwise the theory won't work.

But beaside books, life is our greatest teachers. And practicaly, there are huge differences between men and women, in real life.
And I don't think its because of the "society constructs", or "society expectations"...
Basicaly what you say is that gender construct is gender itself, which is a absurdity.

 

[cvp12gh5]

[MENTION=12327]Anywhere But Here[/MENTION]

I see that you keep putting the problem on my background.
We are not that behind americans, you know. We have TVs, cable, wireless and fast cars from Germany, probably more expensive then american cars.
The show is not that big like in U.S, but romanian people have heart, something which I didn't saw in americans, to be honest.

I work in a ultra-central restaurant in my city, Sibiu, a very strong turistic center in our country. I meet dosenz of americans daily, men and women alike, along with your hot girls (supposedly).
You know what is the most striking difference between americans and romanians? Its about genuinety, which is pretty rare in americans...trust me.
Come to our country in a sunny morning and you will see the difference...althought we are more poor, we have, paradoxicaly more.

I'm not trying to put the problem on your background. It has been suggested to me in this thread that this is why you think the way you do so I took that into consideration. Now you say it has nothing to do with your background. Hear that everyone? That is what I thought from the beginning until it was suggested otherwise.

And no I will not trust you when you give an opinion on Americans based on American tourists you have come in contact with. Not all Americans are alike. And for you to tell me what is rare with Americans and to trust you on it is humorous. Come to my country and then maybe I will consider an opinion from you. Other than that, eh.

And I never said that your country was behind on anything. Again it was suggested to me. Now that you have cleared that up for us, I can confidently say that the only thing behind is your thinking. Let's leave your culture out of it from this point.

 

[LucyJr]

Okay. I am just looking for examples of what you mean by mentally strong then so that everyone can more clearly see your point. I have a feeling there may be some language barrier so maybe the underlying point you are trying to make is not coming across to some people.

Ok, now i'm home and I really have no idea how to explain it.

Like i said, its not about character, as there are women who are more brave then men, or more bold and daring, and also women who are more virtuos in general then other men, not just with regard to the virtues that have to do with strenght, like courage.

In a sense, its not about emotions either, but just in one sense. The stoic type, with iron self-control, unmovable like a rock can be found in women too: there are ESTPs and ISTPs women, if you know one of those. So its not about the strenght of will either, because women like men too, have the capacity to exercise their will to master certain emotions and impulses, which is the whole deal with ESTPs women.

But i think you are right in a sense that emotionaly, the female's psyche is different then that of a man:its more mild, more merciful and more easily persuaded than that of the man.

I think the fundamental differences is the overall behaviour of the woman compared to that of the man. This might sound odd as I will trying to explain it, but I'll try.
Naturaly, men are more proud then women. They have a drive and a ambition that exceeds by far that of a woman.
To be exactly on the point, there is in any grown up man a desire to "outconquer" (I don't know if this is a good word) a woman, to show his strenght and his endurance, to show his "pride", sort of speak. And this is not happening from a inferiority complex, like many think it is: it is happening because a man in his perception, deems himself worthy to be superior to a woman. And to go on this more, this specific act of men is fueled actualy by a woman's provocative attitude. In other words, the woman kind of goes like this:
"Common, show me what you got", which hints clearly that she will not respect him. And he will answer: "I'll show you what I've got"

Now, what is the woman's response to that? Because this were things really get interesting. Instead of the woman being infuriated or taking offence at the man, she actualy respects him and likes him for that.
Moreover, if the man does not raise to the level of his stature, naturaly a woman despises him.
And even more interesting, a man never despises a woman, even when he considers himself superior. But a woman does despise a weak man. Its almsot like women intuitively know that a man is superior and stronger then her, and when he does not raise to his stature, she despises him.
This is as clearly as I can explain it, in my own little understanding.

 

[LucyJr]

I'm not trying to put the problem on your background. It has been suggested to me in this thread that this is why you think the way you do so I took that into consideration. Now you say it has nothing to do with your background. Hear that everyone? That is what I thought from the beginning until it was suggested otherwise.

And no I will not trust you when you give an opinion on Americans based on American tourists you have come in contact with. Not all Americans are alike. And for you to tell me what is rare with Americans and to trust you on it is humorous. Come to my country and then maybe I will consider an opinion from you. Other than that, eh.

And I never said that your country was behind on anything. Again it was suggested to me. Now that you have cleared that up for us, I can confidently say that the only thing behind is your thinking. Let's leave your culture out of it from this point.

yeap, well if you think that I think the way i do because of my cultural backgrounds...that's quite a funny way to dismiss my claims about women on false basis, which is your imagination about what my culture is like toward women.
Likewise, I could dismiss feminism simply because of american culture, or your culture, to be more exact and say..."Well she's so dumb to believe in feminism because of her cultural background. Poor little girl, a victim of that merciless american culture!!!"
How will that sound to you? pretty absurd logicaly, isn't it?

Because that's whay you did. And I disagree. Please consider my ideas independent of my cultural background. Simply because its not logicaly sane, and number 2, you are not my mother to be so genuinely worried about my cultural background.

 

[cvp12gh5]

yeap, well if you think that I think the way i do because of my cultural backgrounds...that's quite a funny way to dismiss my claims about women on false basis, which is your imagination about what my culture is like toward women.
Likewise, I could dismiss feminism simply because of american culture, or your culture, to be more exact and say..."Well she's so dumb to believe in feminism because of her cultural background. Poor little girl, a victim of that merciless american culture!!!"
How will that sound to you? pretty absurd logicaly, isn't it?

Because that's whay you did. And I disagree. Please consider my ideas independent of my cultural background. Simply because its not logicaly sane, and number 2, you are not my mother to be so genuinely worried about my cultural background.

I see you didn't read a word of what I wrote. I did consider your ideas to be all your own and having nothing to do with your culture. I now know that I was correct and that these people made an inaccurate assessment in believing your culture was the reasoning for your views. I am not worried about you or your culture and I am definitely not your mother (thank you, god). If I was, you would have turned out to be a decent human being. Too bad for you.

 

[muir]

I see you didn't read a word of what I wrote. I did consider your ideas to be all your own and having nothing to do with your culture. I now know that I was correct and that these people made an inaccurate assessment of the situation in believing your culture was the reasoning for your views. I'm am not worried about you or your culture and I am definitely not your mother (thank you, god). If I was, you would have turned out to be a decent human being. Too bad for you.

woah woah woah!

he said he came from a 'conservative' culture and so i repeated that....i think it's reasonable to see that as a factor here

each country has it's own flavour and social expectations

 

[cvp12gh5]

woah woah woah!

he said he came from a 'conservative' culture and so i repeated that....i think it's reasonable to see that as a factor here

each country has it's own flavour and social expectations

I thought it was reasonable too. That is why I googled it for more background. I was trying to understand. I found that there might be something to it. Take a look.

http://www.ce-review.org/00/39/dumitrica39.html

But now I'm told it has nothing to do with his culture. This is all him. I believe this.