"Man Caves" connote that the woman rules the roost, and the female of the house is gracious enough to "allow" her husband to be relegated to his cubbyhole. Certainly, what has contributed to the husband being subjugated to this inferior position is the sports commercials on television that portray men as children. And sadly, I have personally seen some guys play this role over the years.
Guys, grow up. Don't call your abode in your library office or entertainment room a "Man Cave." And certainly do not treat it like a Man Cave (or shall I say, "Boy Cave"?).
Speaking of home library offices, here are some ideas.
Agree wholeheartedly!
ReplyDeleteHah, very true. People often refer to our space as my "man cave" and I immediately correct them, graciously of course. :)
ReplyDeleteTo the people at Triablogue,
ReplyDeleteSince you have been removing my comments from the last two posts, comments were not offensive at all, my guess is that this is your way of exercising control or censorship. That is your prerogative. Provided that your comments are respectful, and I'll give some leeway on this as I did for C. Andiron, I will post any of your comments on my blog (http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/) .
Realize that, IMO, your censorship of my comments hurts the credibility of your blog, particularly in terms of your sincerity in searching for the truth.
To the people at Triablogue
DeleteTo the person named Curt Day:
Since you have been removing my comments from the last two posts
What makes you think so? Did you make a comment in an old thread? Maybe it went to the spambox?
Besides, even if we have removed your comments, so what? What's wrong with that? Answer: nothing.
comments were not offensive at all
Actually, you've made some "offensive" comments in the past. People can do a search for your name on our blog and read what you've written.
my guess is that this is your way of exercising control or censorship.
Nice attempt to shift the blame.
Your use of the term "censorship" carries invidious connotations.
Truth is there's nothing wrong with a weblog disallowing certain comments to be posted. In fact, someone could post a perfectly agreeable comment on a weblog, and there'd be nothing wrong for the weblog to disallow it. That's not "censorship" in the same way for example modern China censors its citizens.
That is your prerogative...and I'll give some leeway on this as I did for C. Andiron
Thanks, I'm glad we have your approval to do what we want with our weblog.
Provided that your comments are respectful
Ah, well, I knew there had to be a catch.
BTW, I wonder what this means for all your own less than "respectful" comments to us in the past.
I will post any of your comments on my blog
Speaking for myself, I'd have no problem if you continued posting all your comments over on your own blog rather than here.
Realize that, IMO, your censorship of my comments hurts the credibility of your blog
Phew! I'm glad it's just in your opinion.
particularly in terms of your sincerity in searching for the truth.
Ironic since you're hardly a "sincer[e]...search[er] for the truth." The entire time you've been here you've hardly been reasonable. Instead you continue pushing your own agenda as a self-described "Socialist," same-sex marriage proponent, conspiracy theorist, etc. Not only do you tongue-lash others with the ideas of people like Chomsky and Zinn but you tongue-lash people with your own half-baked ideas. Plus, there were several times when you admitted you didn't even bother to read what we wrote but just went on writing what you wanted to write (since, for instance, we had to keep telling you we had already responded to this or that point of yours). Again, people can do a search on our blog and read your own comments.
Someone was removing my comments, Evidence for that was I left a comment on this thread yesterday and it was published. When I cam back to see what was said, it was gone. In addition, Twice, I left basically the same comment on the post containing William Clark's article and again, they were gone. That occurred yesterday. Again, all of that occurred yesterday.
DeleteAnd were my comments respectful, I gather that you were offended when I challenged the number of posts and the details you used on one particular subject as disrespectful. It wasn't. But everything else was above question. And where I challenged you on that was not what was deleted.
What did I write here that disappeared? I wrote something to the effect that I attribute man-caves to materialism rather than to being a sissy. That comment was removed. That was offensive?
In the thread referring to Dr. Craig's article, I simply said that his logic was incorrect. I wrote that the real discrimination occurs when we ban same-sex marriage than when we allow it, which was Dr. Craig's claim.
The responses I left were short and nonoffensive, nonpersonal. remarks.
Of course, it is my views that you find offensive rather than how I express them. There is nothing offensive about being a Christian fundamentalist and being a socialist. In fact, if you go to some European nations, you might find that the combination is more common there than here. I just received email from a person who said that he/she leans to the left and belongs to a Presbyterian Church that is Reformed. A fellow fundamentalist friend of mine from England, who is also Reformed, leans to the political left and likes my views and tells me that Conservative Christians from where he lives are liberal in their politics.
BTW, I never said anything about a conspiracy theory and the one time I wrote that I didn't read a post, it was because I didn't see it.
So I am going to make comments here. And how you answer and what you do with them is a reflection on you.
You've emoting, Curt. You're upset and angry about a couple of missing comments.
DeleteDo you know why they're missing? No. You're just assuming we deleted them, and then flying off the handle based on your unproven assumption.
Besides, as I pointed out above, let's say you're right. Let's say we deleted them. So what? Why must we publish every comment you post? It's not like publishing comments is a moral or other right that must be guaranteed to every commenter. Commenting is a privilege, not a right.
Anyway, the irony is you're alleging we removed your comments. Yet here you are, and here your comments stand.
What's more, here we are responding to you again. Actually, a good reason for why we should remove your comments is how much of our time you're wasting in comparative trifles like this.
BTW, you're hardly the first person to complain about missing comments. For example, see the comments in this thread.
Other Tbloggers have made excellent points here. Check out what Jason, Steve, and Peter have written in the combox.
Steve quoted the following a few years back but it's worth requoting:
DeleteLeaving comments is a privilege, not a right. The site administrator is under no obligation to accept comments at all, let alone from any particular person. And to underscore the obvious: nothing in the nature of a weblog requires that it accept comments from readers.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.
(Source)
LoL
ReplyDeleteI wonder why they didn't delete this one, Curt.
Maybe you actually don't rate special attention.
Man-Cave, shman-cave. I don't know of a single space in our home that my wife and I don't share. Although we have some things that we label "hers" or "his" and each have places where we each tend to stay more than others, we really don't need separate spaces. Early on she offered that we could wall up the pass-through between the kitchen and the office and put a door on the doorway so I could have more privacy, I declined. I wanted a place where the monitor and TV in the office could be seen from the rest of the house and wanted her and the kids to have access to me whenever they wanted. I also wanted to notice if she was doing something that I could help with so she wouldn't be burdened with doing everything in the house. It works wonderfully.
ReplyDeleteI get your point, but don't entirely agree. My wife happens to be the aesthetically gifted member of our household, so it makes sense for her to do the decorating. However, my home office, where I do most of my work, is uniquely MY space. So I have the freedom to arrange it pragmatically to hold the most books and I am free not to have to maintain the standards of orderliness that make her happy (we can keep the door closed so she doesn't have to look at it). I like having my space. That being said, I agree with you that there is not need to create a "Macho" space in the house. It just seems silly. We share a hobby room divided between her crafts and my music gear. And the living space, where we watch TV is equally ours (she decorates, but I put together the home theater system). There is no issue of who rules. We rule our house together. BTW, as for the computer monitor, I get a weekly report on my on-line activities that helps keep me from wasting time instead of working. A copy goes to her, so we both know that I am not going where I am not supposed to. (rescuetime.com)
ReplyDeleteSo I have the freedom to arrange it pragmatically to hold the most books and I am free not to have to maintain the standards of orderliness that make her happy (we can keep the door closed so she doesn't have to look at it).
ReplyDeleteIn other words your preferred method of orderliness needs to be kept hidden, hence the term "man-cave". Your wife needs to be able to block your space from sight because she can't stand seeing it. Yeah, that doesn't sound like you're being ruled at all.
BTW, do you hold your wife just as accountable as you hold yourself to her in scrutinizing how much time she spends on the internet? You're not obligated to answer, of course, but you've thrown it out there, and it seems that you inadvertently tipped your hand to your own man-cave mentality despite denying the reality of it.
Like I said before, though I think my comment didn't go through, I don't plan on ever having a man-cave anymore than I think my fiance should need a woman-cave. As it is, I made sure to pick a woman who shares my interests. She's a gamer-girl to the core, and even if she weren't, I wouldn't hide my video-gaming nature from her as if it were something to be embarrassed about. I like what I like- why on earth would I marry a woman who would hate what I like so much that I should need permission to enjoy it, and then only inside a protective bubble so that she has to "put up with it" as little as possible?
ReplyDeleteThis is the 4th time I posted this so I'll change it. This man-cave stuff is more about materialism than anything else. And that is the real danger here.
ReplyDeleteI have a man-cave because I wanted somewhere I can play music without disturbing kids who go to bed early, where I could build my own desk to my own design, and that has enough room for me to set up all my computer diagnostic benches and integrate them with my main system. We have two rooms under the carport - one is a tool room, and the other is the room that I use for my main desktop, the server, my library, with all of the books the rest of the family really have no interest in, my parts cabinets, shelves, and the 7-8 diagnostic benches which also are integrated with my custom desk. It has absolutely nothing to do with what my wife wanted. I wanted it, because there just simply isn't enough room in the main house for what I needed to do. I don't see how you might support the contention that the use of the title "man-cave" carries with it a necessary connotation of "being ruled by your wife." Especially when the major issue is often space, or children's/work-related needs - as well as the not-so-unimportant issue of convenience and time savings - not that of your spouse's desires.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you might support the contention that the use of the title "man-cave" carries with it a necessary connotation of "being ruled by your wife."
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's because you're conflating a home-office with a man-cave. Maybe you've combined the two, but it doesn't seem that way given how you've described it. That just sounds like a work-space to me.
Sorry. My previous comment should read, "Maybe you haven't combined the two."
ReplyDelete