The Book of Mormon: A Latter-day Guide to Manhood

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Is there anything in there on how to be a good woman, mother, or wife?  What prominent characters in the BoM are women?

Fun Fact: There are only six women mentioned by name in the Book of Mormon. Three are biblical (Eve, Sarah, Mary) and three are actually in the text. Abish is there because of a vision her dad got, Sariah is there because her some mentioned her name, and Isabel was a whore or possibly some kind of fertility cult or something.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, longview said:

Are you aware that in many public schools that there is extremely low tolerance for boys to be their natural selves? If boys are too boisterous, energetic, "disruptive" or what have you, then they are forcibly constrained in various ways. Sometimes they like to give them medication to turn them into compliant drones or zombies.

Have you not heard the "outrage" culture demonizing white males for several decades? How goverment welfare policies are structured in such a way that men cannot be part of the household if women were to obtain recieve benefits. Thus effectively driving men away from being with their children and having important influence for them. There are likely hundreds of insidious methods like these for re-programming society.

Whereas in the good old days if boys were too boisterous in school we would literally physically beat them. The idea that in the past boys were allowed to run wild is revisionist history.

I mean, have you read the stuff on posture and manners from the 19th century? Children should be seen and not hears? Yet somehow the current system is the one suppressing them?

Edited April 19, 2024 by The Nehor

[MustardSeed]

I don’t have any heroines in the Book of Mormon.   I’m glad the boys have great examples to emulate. 
 

I mean, I can look up to men and I do.  But wouldn’t it be nice to have a woman of equal esteem of Nephi for us gals? 
 

I really don’t think record keepers felt much of a need to let the future know about their remarkable women.  It’s too bad. 

[Tacenda]

Do you follow Jordan Peterson? My son read or reads his book, just curious. Also, here's a short Youtube mentioning Jordan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAU3KPoeecs

BTW, Woke means this to me: Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I really don’t think record keepers felt much of a need to let the future know about their remarkable women.  It’s too bad. 

I agree. I don't think it's because God inspired Mormon and the other prophets to ignore women and their needs because men were going to be so persecuted in the last days all their energy needed to go to them.

I agree with Zealous that there are many stories and examples in the BOM that men can learn from and emulate.  It's just that that is as true for women as it for men.

Edited April 20, 2024 by bluebell

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I mean, I can look up to men and I do.  But wouldn’t it be nice to have a woman of equal esteem of Nephi for us gals? 

Eowyn, daughter of Eomund, shield maiden of Rohan, slayer of the Witch King of Angmar. 

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Fun Fact: There are only six women mentioned by name in the Book of Mormon. Three are biblical (Eve, Sarah, Mary) and three are actually in the text. Abish is there because of a vision her dad got, Sariah is there because her some mentioned her name, and Isabel was a whore or possibly some kind of fertility cult or something.

There's also the anonymous maidservant, who is in the Book of Mormon because Morianton "fell on her and beat her much."

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

There's also the anonymous maidservant, who is in the Book of Mormon because Morianton "fell on her and beat her much."

I said mentioned by name. There are a few unnamed female characters. The wife of Lamoni, the wife of Lamoni’s dad, Nephi’s wife, and some women who are referred to collectively.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did you bother to read what I wrote underneath? Choosing the most blatantly obvious bad behavior from the list and implying I advocate for it is discussing in bad faith.

That being said, merely flirting with women is seen as assault or harassment in some woke minds.

Why use a list where so much behavior that is described is actually wrong (harmful) instead of just listing masculine behaviors you approve of, but you see as under attack by our greater culture?  It is weird that in your effort to describe attacks on manhood you critically use a list that among other things attacks promiscuity (not an obscure bit that had to be searched for, but one of its main topics with its own heading), attacks violence (another heading), attacks being dominant (meaning controlling and yep, it’s a heading), attacks sexual aggression towards women, attacks ridicule of men doing housework and caregiving.  And on and on…

What in the list of apparently in your view only alleged toxic masculinity behaviors you yourself referenced is there that you see as praiseworthy and in need of protection (that any hint of gets slammed as toxic inappropriately) so much that God had men create a book to combat it?

PS:  Btw, when you copy someone’s else’s work, you are supposed to give them credit.

PPS:  And flirting is not on the list of toxic masculinity you referenced, only promiscuity (which is not flirting since sexual “conquests” are about closing the deal and then some).  Do you have another actual list of toxic masculinity posted somewhere on line by those critical of such behaviours that states that flirting is an assault or harassment or is this from a list you speculate some women and others have made, but haven’t actually seen?

Quote

Typically, men will be praised by other men for sexual conquests. There is a well-known double standard regarding perceptions of male versus female promiscuity with men being praised by their peers and called ‘studs’ while rejecting women who have multiple partners and branding them ‘sluts

https://www.aurorand.org.uk/news/top-10-toxic-masculinity-behaviours

Edited April 20, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

It is a pity that you (zealous) have apparently*** latched onto the idea that toxic masculinity is attacking all masculinity as toxic as it most certainly isn’t, though I have seen some try to dismiss the criticisms it includes and avoid the conversation by claiming such. 

Much (most, even all for some) of what critics of toxic masculinity criticize are behaviors the Church and the scriptures also counsel against.  If you had simply stuck to your original idea and simply identified behaviors that are promoted by our culture in many ways or ways where our society hinders good behaviors, this could have been a decent thread. Instead you shifted to criticizing critics of toxic masculinity similar to how some criticize strawmen constructions of woke and therefore now appear to be unintentionally promoting behaviors that most definitely do not align with the Restores Gospel.

And if you think I am also only focusing on extreme aspects of what typically falls under toxic masculinity and ignoring good behaviors that are included in such lists, please show me where in the Aurora list, for example, there is a good behavior that they label as toxic. 
 

And just in case you are wondering why I am spending this much time on this thread, it is because I think it is better not to defend something good than to use a really bad argument in its defense. That is amounts to instead of stopping a guy from kicking a dog, turning to kick it yourself in my view. You only make things worse. 

There was a lot I was agreeing with in your first post on the thread, though I would argue that those aspects of manhood you listed have always been under attack in societies that promote self centeredness, greed, etc. and it is simply more of the same in our society.  (A lot of cultures did not have fathers involved in the upbringing of the children until they were seen as close to adults, for example.) Should take a moment to also note many societies that promote selfishness also promote unselfishness. Humans are consistently inconsistent.

It makes sense that scriptures would teach against the very human, ever present quality of selfishness, which is the common denominator that weakens the roles of men you listed in your opening post, thus making it applicable for our day as well as the authors.  But that was not apparently the discussion you wanted to have after all. 

***I say apparently because it’s the only way that makes sense of your later posts in this thread to me.

 

Edited April 20, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

It is a pity that you (zealous) have apparently*** latched onto the idea that toxic masculinity is attacking all masculinity as toxic as it most certainly isn’t, though I have seen some try to dismiss the criticisms it includes and avoid the conversation by claiming such. 

Much (most, even all for some) of what critics of toxic masculinity criticize are behaviors the Church and the scriptures also counsel against.  If you had simply stuck to your original idea and simply identified behaviors that are promoted by our culture in many ways or ways where our society hinders good behaviors, this could have been a decent thread. Instead you shifted to criticizing critics of toxic masculinity similar to how some criticize strawmen constructions of woke and therefore now appear to be unintentionally promoting behaviors that most definitely do not align with the Restores Gospel.

And if you think I am also only focusing on extreme aspects of what typically falls under toxic masculinity and ignoring good behaviors that are included in such lists, please show me where in the Aurora list, for example, there is a good behavior that they label as toxic. 
 

And just in case you are wondering why I am spending this much time on this thread, it is because I think it is better not to defend something good than to use a really bad argument in its defense. That is amounts to instead of stopping a guy from kicking a dog, turning to kick it yourself in my view. You only make things worse. 

There was a lot I was agreeing with in your first post on the thread, though I would argue that those aspects of manhood you listed have always been under attack in societies that promote self centeredness, greed, etc. and it is simply more of the same in our society.  (A lot of cultures did not have fathers involved in the upbringing of the children until they were seen as close to adults, for example.) Should take a moment to also note many societies that promote selfishness also promote unselfishness. Humans are consistently inconsistent.

It makes sense that scriptures would teach against the very human, ever present quality of selfishness, which is the common denominator that weakens the roles of men you listed in your opening post, thus making it applicable for our day as well as the authors.  But that was not apparently the discussion you wanted to have after all. 

***I say apparently because it’s the only way that makes sense of your later posts in this thread to me.

 

Nvrmnd

Edited April 20, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[MustardSeed]

You feel victimized because you think you’re hiding your biases so well but unfortunately  you can’t help yourself- this crowd is not all “woke” but they are definitely savvy and very very intelligent. IMO. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If there was some way to shutdown this thread and start over, I would. But now everything is misconstrued and out of proportion. I give up.

It's called a "re-do". Go for it, I'm sorry if I've jumped to the wrong conclusions. Start a new thread, you're allowed!!

Edited April 20, 2024 by Tacenda

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You feel victimized because you think you’re hiding your biases so well but unfortunately  you can’t help yourself- this crowd is not all “woke” but they are definitely savvy and very very intelligent. IMO. 

Yeah, you know my biases so well... Let me fill you in then I'm done:

I was raised by a single woman. My dad, closest uncle, and all their friends were drug addicts.

I just spent the last 7.5 years in prison, during which time my wife died. While there I got to see where "living your own truth" gets you. But I also got to see the failures of society and government towards those who make really, really bad decisions. And my heart hurts for them. I did my best to help by teaching our chapel services for the last 2 years I was in.

I am passionate about the truths of the Restored Gospel and scriptural standards of morality and conduct because I know from first-hand experience and observation what doing the opposite of that leads to.

So I may be ineloquent or too plain spoken, but it comes from a place of genuine sincere concern and caring for the welfare of the souls around me. I don't want anyone to have to learn the hard way like I did.

Now, you know more about me than you ever needed to.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yeah, you know my biases so well... Let me fill you in then I'm done:

I was raised by a single woman. My dad, closest uncle, and all their friends were drug addicts.

I just spent the last 7.5 years in prison, during which time my wife died. While there I got to see where "living your own truth" gets you. But I also got to see the failures of society and government towards those who make really, really bad decisions. And my heart hurts for them. I did my best to help by teaching our chapel services for the last 2 years I was in.

I am passionate about the truths of the Restored Gospel and scriptural standards of morality and conduct because I know from first-hand experience and observation what doing the opposite of that leads to.

So I may be ineloquent or too plain spoken, but it comes from a place of genuine sincere concern and caring for the welfare of the souls around me. I don't want anyone to have to learn the hard way like I did.

Now, you know more about me than you ever needed to.

Thanks for sharing! I see where you're coming from. I believe you're not alone in loving the LDS church as a safe place, not to put words in your mouth. My sister-in-law was abused sexually by her father growing up and she clings to the church because it's her safe place. And I believe it helps so many that need the iron rod, or a safe place or maybe something that keeps them from doing things they'd do w/o the church's guidance and structure. 

Not saying you're under these descriptions, just understand why or how you'd want the church in your life and it's doctrine and scriptures. 

My brother was in prison for several years due to his girlfriend accusing him of kidnapping and rape. But turns out she lied and even took him in and wanted to repay him back for doing that when he got out. She was actually jealous and thought he'd been cheating on her, and angry about it. But not saying he didn't do anything wrong. He's an alcoholic so he definitely isn't nice when he's drunk, I've seen it. 

Lo and behold, he's told me he has a lot of demons from being in there and he's probably seen and done some horrible things while there. I hope this hasn't been you're situation. But I'm sure you've seen plenty. I'm sorry about your wife passing too. And so glad your last two years were so helpful to many, I've no doubt. 

My brother would probably hold the same opinion as you. We disagree politically too. But I empathize so much for how others have very difficult situations that affect their whole life. I'm glad you're back and sounds like your place right now is the LDS church and it's your happy place so I'm sure glad about that. 

[longview]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You feel victimized because you think you’re hiding your biases so well but unfortunately  you can’t help yourself- this crowd is not all “woke” but they are definitely savvy and very very intelligent. IMO. 

The "outrage" culture is very pernicious in their many and varied methods. For example, the national organization for women (NOW) advocated for decades for "equality" for women, for delaying marriage and children in order to pursue a high-faluting career, and so on. But the people staffing and leading this organization were actually dedicated marxists whose real underlying hidden objectives were to dismantle the basic unit of the family. Now we read of more and more women expressing deep regret for missing out on the joys of rearing a family.

Another example is the equal rights amendment (ERA) put forth in 1923 and pursued until 1972 when it was passed by both houses of Congress. It failed to get the required 3/4 of the states. The Church fought hard against it because it would have had a severe and disruptive effect on society.

Many of those things appear to be enlightening on the surface but if we delve deeper into them, we see more and more cause for concern of the cause and effect that lead to greater chaos. Earlier in this thread I referred to the harmful contraints imposed on boys. Here are a few of the books on this topic:

The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers 

The Boy Crisis by Warren Farrell PhD, John Gray PhD, et al.

 

Boys Should Be Boys: 7 Secrets to Raising Healthy Sons by Meg Meeker

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for sharing! I see where you're coming from. I believe you're not alone in loving the LDS church as a safe place, not to put words in your mouth. My sister-in-law was abused sexually by her father growing up and she clings to the church because it's her safe place. And I believe it helps so many that need the iron rod, or a safe place or maybe something that keeps them from doing things they'd do w/o the church's guidance and structure. 

Not saying you're under these descriptions, just understand why or how you'd want the church in your life and it's doctrine and scriptures. 

My brother was in prison for several years due to his girlfriend accusing him of kidnapping and rape. But turns out she lied and even took him in and wanted to repay him back for doing that when he got out. She was actually jealous and thought he'd been cheating on her, and angry about it. But not saying he didn't do anything wrong. He's an alcoholic so he definitely isn't nice when he's drunk, I've seen it. 

Lo and behold, he's told me he has a lot of demons from being in there and he's probably seen and done some horrible things while there. I hope this hasn't been you're situation. But I'm sure you've seen plenty. I'm sorry about your wife passing too. And so glad your last two years were so helpful to many, I've no doubt. 

My brother would probably hold the same opinion as you. We disagree politically too. But I empathize so much for how others have very difficult situations that affect their whole life. I'm glad you're back and sounds like your place right now is the LDS church and it's your happy place so I'm sure glad about that. 

Fortunately for me I was doing much better and already progressing at the time of my arrest (9.5 years after I committed my offense), so I didn't get caught up in all the drama. I came to be known as the "Mormon" guy people could have more mature, personal spiritual conversations with, if they wanted.

Heavenly Father was good to me and didn't take my wife until after I had regained my testimony of the Church proper and the ordinances of the House of the Lord- so I was filled with hope when she passed and eagerly anticipate being sealed to her after I am readmitted to the Church, which was our life plan after I got out.

[longview]

29 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So I may be ineloquent or too plain spoken, but it comes from a place of genuine sincere concern and caring for the welfare of the souls around me. I don't want anyone to have to learn the hard way like I did.

I greatly appreciate your posts and agree with much of what you say. I grew up in downtown Salt Lake City in 1950's and 60's. I probably could have been in prison but the church pull me from the brink. It is very shocking for me to see how "politically correct" people are in urban areas. Last time I was in SLC for a family reunion a couple years ago, I stayed in an air-bnb in the neighborhood of 9th East and 13th South. Going on walks in the area I saw so many rainbow flags on the porches. I read KSL.COM and see the leftist bias and presuppositions similar to the New York Times. The warnings given by Ezra Taft Benson is being fulfilled. I am also shocked at the behavior of Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.

The LORD bless your heart, mind and soul!

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, longview said:

The "outrage" culture is very pernicious in their many and varied methods. For example, the national organization for women (NOW) advocated for decades for "equality" for women, for delaying marriage and children in order to pursue a high-faluting career, and so on. But the people staffing and leading this organization were actually dedicated marxists whose real underlying hidden objectives were to dismantle the basic unit of the family. Now we read of more and more women expressing deep regret for missing out on the joys of rearing a family.

Another example is the equal rights amendment (ERA) put forth in 1923 and pursued until 1972 when it was passed by both houses of Congress. It failed to get the required 3/4 of the states. The Church fought hard against it because it would have had a severe and disruptive effect on society.

Many of those things appear to be enlightening on the surface but if we delve deeper into them, we see more and more cause for concern of the cause and effect that lead to greater chaos. Earlier in this thread I referred to the harmful contraints imposed on boys. Here are a few of the books on this topic:

The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers 

The Boy Crisis by Warren Farrell PhD, John Gray PhD, et al.

 

Boys Should Be Boys: 7 Secrets to Raising Healthy Sons by Meg Meeker

 

I have three boys and one girl.  I see and agree that society does fail our sons.  But I think it fails our daughters to the same degree, just in different ways.  My hackles come up when someone only sees the harm that affects them and those like them but can't see (or don't care about) the harm that is happening to others.

And yes, some of the founders of NOW were marxist when young.  That was a fairly common thing back then, with colleges even having communist clubs you could join.  Many liberals were communists because of the ideals (ideals no communist country was ever able to achieve).  It doesn't mean that they were all hell bent on destroying the nuclear family and you can't blame NOW on communism.  It was the decades of mistreatment, abuse, and inequality in the law that caused women to start NOW and other organizations.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, longview said:

I greatly appreciate your posts and agree with much of what you say. I grew up in downtown Salt Lake City in 1950's and 60's. I probably could have been in prison but the church pull me from the brink. It is very shocking for me to see how "politically correct" people are in urban areas. Last time I was in SLC for a family reunion a couple years ago, I stayed in an air-bnb in the neighborhood of 9th East and 13th South. Going on walks in the area I saw so many rainbow flags on the porches. I read KSL.COM and see the leftist bias and presuppositions similar to the New York Times. The warnings given by Ezra Taft Benson is being fulfilled. I am also shocked at the behavior of Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.

The LORD bless your heart, mind and soul!

👍 I think Pres. Benson's teachings that *some* find so troublesome (esp. concerning the socialism/communism connection) are being/will be vindicated.

Edited April 20, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[longview]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That was a fairly common thing back then, with colleges even having communist clubs you could join.

It was much more extensive than that. There are many books on the culture. Here are a few:

Radical Son: A Generational Oddysey by David Horowitz

An Enemy Hath Done This by Ezra T. Benson

Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, longview said:

It was much more extensive than that. There are many books on the culture. Here are a few:

Radical Son: A Generational Oddysey by David Horowitz

An Enemy Hath Done This by Ezra T. Benson

Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky 

Without going to these sites, do you mean that women should stay at home and raise the children, not work outside of the home, make the dinners, dress up for their husbands when they return. Rely on their husband's income etc. etc.? 

Sadly nowadays women are pretty much in need of working. Because if a woman is happy about it, I think the woman in the home can be the ideal situation. If she's good for the children to be around, if she's unhappy about being home all day, maybe it isn't a good environment. So it all depends on that. But do believe the pendulum is swinging back to this. I've seen where the women want to be home, but maybe the men are enjoying the extra income and don't want them to quit? Not sure, but do see how we may go back to the 50's, 70' or 80's possibly. Or maybe that's impossible with the economy. Just wish there was an answer or a way for women/men to have it all, haha. I'm sure it made men feel more manly when the women would be at their beck and call like the old days. It would make them feel more masculine if they are the head of the home, and get treated like they are the king of the castle. But it's been shown, that the little woman at home, may want to venture out and see what other skills she has to offer as well. Maybe the woman is so powerful she makes the man feel inadequate? And they need to keep the women less powerful for their egos? Wondering if this might be in the mix. But seriously, if it went back to where the women took care of the housekeeping, the food prep, the laundry and the children rearing, who in the heck wouldn't love that if you're a man. Knowing when you get home you have a nice meal prepared, the little woman's makeup or dress is nice, you get home and get to relax a while because you've been working all day? While the woman is ransacked all day, trying to keep all the home fires burning, so to speak. I'd like a wife for that too!  But who knows, I wish I had the answers. I'd like to return to the old days sometimes. But don't think the old days were as idyllic as they seem on "Leave it to Beaver". I tend to believe, that in many generations women had more help from either family or a hired maid perhaps. More women stayed home and then had each other for support. That would be cool, but I'm me. And I'm a little embarrassed if this has nothing to do with the articles. Now I'm going to go to them and see how far off I am.

But my bad for not even going to these articles, but think this is the stem of the problem. If you read this far. 

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, longview said:

I greatly appreciate your posts and agree with much of what you say. I grew up in downtown Salt Lake City in 1950's and 60's. I probably could have been in prison but the church pull me from the brink. It is very shocking for me to see how "politically correct" people are in urban areas. Last time I was in SLC for a family reunion a couple years ago, I stayed in an air-bnb in the neighborhood of 9th East and 13th South. Going on walks in the area I saw so many rainbow flags on the porches. I read KSL.COM and see the leftist bias and presuppositions similar to the New York Times. The warnings given by Ezra Taft Benson is being fulfilled. I am also shocked at the behavior of Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.

The LORD bless your heart, mind and soul!

I think Mitt Romney is one of the bravest Republicans I know! For going against the unrecognizable Republican party. That's as far as I go now. Don't want to go against the "Seriously No Politics". But kind of think it has been this all along. But maybe if it's done again, it will veer off that path. 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, longview said:

It was much more extensive than that. There are many books on the culture. Here are a few:

Radical Son: A Generational Oddysey by David Horowitz

An Enemy Hath Done This by Ezra T. Benson

Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky 

There are many books on it, and not all that agree with the books you've listed.  If there is one thing I learned from getting my degree in history it's that you can support any argument you want to make.  You just have to pick which evidence to share and which to leave out. 

You really do have to read books with different biases to get the full and most accurate picture.  If you are only getting your information from Horowitz or those who view things similarly, there will be holes in your historical view.

I believe that Ezra Taft Benson was a prophet, but like most in the church leadership and first presidency at the time he served in washington (he was censured multiple times for saying some of the things he said over the pulpit in GC), I don't agree with a lot of his politics.  He was caught up in the red scare like many people that age were, and his embracing of ultra-conservatism and the propaganda that went along with it was his own doing and had nothing to do with the gospel of Christ.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Without going to these sites, do you mean that women should stay at home and raise the children, not work outside of the home, make the dinners, dress up for their husbands when they return. Rely on their husband's income etc. etc.? 

Sadly nowadays women are pretty much in need of working. Because if a woman is happy about it, I think the woman in the home can be the ideal situation. If she's good for the children to be around, if she's unhappy about being home all day, maybe it isn't a good environment. So it all depends on that. But do believe the pendulum is swinging back to this. I've seen where the women want to be home, but maybe the men are enjoying the extra income and don't want them to quit? Not sure, but do see how we may go back to the 50's, 70' or 80's possibly. Or maybe that's impossible with the economy. Just wish there was an answer or a way for women/men to have it all, haha. I'm sure it made men feel more manly when the women would be at their beck and call like the old days. It would make them feel more masculine if they are the head of the home, and get treated like they are the king of the castle. But it's been shown, that the little woman at home, may want to venture out and see what other skills she has to offer as well. Maybe the woman is so powerful she makes the man feel inadequate? And they need to keep the women less powerful for their egos? Wondering if this might be in the mix. But seriously, if it went back to where the women took care of the housekeeping, the food prep, the laundry and the children rearing, who in the heck wouldn't love that if you're a man. Knowing when you get home you have a nice meal prepared, the little woman's makeup or dress is nice, you get home and get to relax a while because you've been working all day? While the woman is ransacked all day, trying to keep all the home fires burning, so to speak. I'd like a wife for that too!  But who knows, I wish I had the answers. I'd like to return to the old days sometimes. But don't think the old days were as idyllic as they seem on "Leave it to Beaver". I tend to believe, that in many generations women had more help from either family or a hired maid perhaps. More women stayed home and then had each other for support. That would be cool, but I'm me. And I'm a little embarrassed if this has nothing to do with the articles. Now I'm going to go to them and see how far off I am.

But my bad for not even going to these articles, but think this is the stem of the problem. If you read this far. 

They are books, not articles, so I don't think you need to apologize for not reading them before commenting.