posted on April 19, 2007 08:51:38 AM
silly story:
When I met the man who was to become my husband, I had just gotten divorced ending an empty relationship.
I had my two kids and my dog and was very happy to no longer be responsible for my self centered ex.
While walking our dogs, as neighbors in a townhouse community often do, I mentioned to my neighbor Mark that 'a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle' and I told him I was happy, totally competent, and fully content to be by myself and enjoy my kids with no man.
He thought I was telling him that I was gay!
Obviously, that perception changed as 8 years later we now have four kids and I am in the happiest, healthiest relationship of my life.
I am with him because I choose to be with him, not because I need to be with him.
I still think that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
Cant remember where I read that but it was in the hippie days and I was only in the third grade.
Some things just stick.
posted on April 19, 2007 09:03:12 AM
I totally agree with zoomin. She knows men and women choose to be together...make committments....start or continue a family. It's a VALUE for them, and for me too.
===============
"You see Linda, just because you don't NEED a man does not mean that you fear or loath them."
Something is wrong with women, IMO, who say they don't need a man. Men and women 'need' each other. It's natures way.....God's way.
Children NEED two parents of the opposite sex to give their children a balanced view of life and it's challenges.
But I usually notice that it's SINGLE feminist women that take that position....you know the ones who aren't married and haven't had children.
I don't give these feminists much or any credit for their opinions of what marriage and family are all about.
"It simply means that you are not dependent on them for your financial, emotional, or physical well being."
Two shall become one. And in most good/strong marriages they do. Those are the long term marriages that survive BECAUSE they pulled together to deal with what life throws their way. Not those who spend their lives in combat.
They don't need to do 'battle' with each other to prove to themselves, or each other, which one has more power in the relationship. And because a women doesn't have an outside job...doesn't mean she is automatically 'dependent on men'.
But that IS the feminist line of thinking....heaven forbid they're EVER 'financially dependent' on a man. They're NOT to be trusted to care for their families, in the feminist mind-think.
"I don't really see that as being a "feminist", I see that as being an emotionally stable, well rounded, and secure human being."
But one who IS SCARED and unwilling to 'commit' to the opposite sex by taking the BIG step and trusting those same men to love and care for them. Unconditionally...and just because that's THEIR value system also.
posted on April 19, 2007 09:15:16 AM
Children NEED two parents of the opposite sex to give their children a balanced view of life and it's challenges.
why do they need to be opposite sex to get a view of life's challenges?
Children need parents for their love and encouragement, but parents do not come in neat little packages.
I do not feel that there is something 'wrong' with people who do not NEED each other, and, again, I do not NEED Mark.
I do not agree that it is god's way, either.
If everyone chose to be with someone and recreate, we would have overpopulated his world long ago.
Unless you see that as his way?
posted on April 19, 2007 09:22:07 AM
zoomin - As most studies have shown....the IDEAL way for children to be raised is with two parents of the opposite sex.
Why? Because men and women are very different in many ways. And those different charactistics give a more balanced view of life to young children. Two men or two women can't offer the day to day example of our differences to a young child.
posted on April 19, 2007 09:28:59 AM
Beautifully said, fenix! The words I'd have used if I could have. Our long marriage has been a very good one; we've always supported each other in anything we wanted to do--apply for a new job, run for office, join an organization, etc. He's never shown that he's threatened by my successes; in fact, he's always bragged about me. He respects me, I respect him. I'm a strong woman; he's a strong man. Voila, it works!
_____________________
Dogs have owners, cats have staff.
posted on April 19, 2007 09:35:57 AM
Linda stated, "Why? Because men and women are very different in many ways. And those different charactistics give a more balanced view of life to young children. Two men or two women can't offer the day to day example of our differences to a young child.
I disagree with that. A family is not so isolated in this society that children need a mother and father to represent both male and female traits.
posted on April 19, 2007 09:38:39 AM
And that's exactly why we see fewer marriages helen....more divorces...and less of what has always been the 'traditional' family life that this nation was formed upon.
posted on April 19, 2007 09:55:47 AM
I think the 'ideal' is a matter of perspective.
There are more abusive male/female relationships that same sex relationships (obviously more than in single parent situations, as well). Not 'ideal' for raising children.
Gay parents in a healthy relationship can offer significant examples of 'differences in day to day situations'. Who would have more insight and experience to dealing with 'differences' and 'challenges' than those who have faced the challenges of being gay in a straight world?
posted on April 19, 2007 10:05:41 AMBut one who IS SCARED and unwilling to 'commit' to the opposite sex by taking the BIG step and trusting those same men to love and care for them.
Not neccessarily Linda. I don't NEED a man in my life but I am certainly not scared of having one or scared to trust in one. If I could find one that did not get on my last nerve and won't complain that my current business has me traveling a great deal and doing so with my male business partner I would be more than happy to enter into a relationship. How many men do you know that secure? And could you tell me where to meet them?
For some reason Linda, you seem to forget that there are areas of grey, that some people have different priorites than yourself and that those priorities are not always motivated by the negative. Just because one does not need a realtionship to make them feel complete does not mean they fear the relationship. Sometimes it means that they value other things more at the time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW - Hi all and thanks for the welcome back. Looks like I will be around much more for for the next few weeks at least so I guess we will see how long the welcomes stay warm
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on April 19, 2007 10:38:13 AM
We just don't agree on that then, Zoomin.
Gays and lesbians are 'fighting their own fight' internally as well as in our society.
I'd bet there's JUST as much violence/etc in their relationships as there are in most heterosexual ones.
Plus on the whole they have a much different view of what 'committment' to each other really is. Most have no problems stepping outside their 'partnership' once in a while.
Agreed upon by both.
Gays/lesbians wouldn't be any different...but they come with more emotional/social problems. And I do believe since most gays don't want children anyway....it's really silly to argue about 'children' when discussing 'gay relationships'. Most like a childless existance.
"Not neccessarily Linda. I don't NEED a man in my life but I am certainly not scared of having one or scared to trust in one."
Even if my choice of reasons are not correct, fenix, a lot of feminists don't marry or get divorced and never remarry. Few choose to have children and even fewer chose to commit and raise a family.
I've noticed this 'common demoninator' in MOST feminists women who post on the chat boards I've read. They're always supporting this 'total independence' from men. Like they're scared of them....for many different reasons.
"If I could find one that did not get on my last nerve and won't complain that my current business has me traveling a great deal and doing so with my male business partner I would be more than happy to enter into a relationship."
I believe that. The chosen excuse doesn't matter though, in the long scheme of things. I think roadsmith gives a good example of how strong men and strong women CAN work these issues out in a committed marriage and family life.
"[i]How many men do you know that secure? And could you tell me where to meet them[i]?"
If I told you where....you'd flip out. lol lol Seriously though....that IS part of my point. For at least the past 50 years feminists have changed men as we used to know them.
Feminists have DEMANDED this change and that change in men and it's gotten to the point their 'fighting back'. "Like okay you want to be that way....then don't expect me to protect you, support you, open the doors for you or even marry you. I don't have to...I can get what I want from you without marrying/committing to you...so I will. You carry AT LEAST your half."
"For some reason Linda, you seem to forget that there are areas of grey, that some people have different priorites than yourself and that those priorities are not always motivated by the negative. Just because one does not need a realtionship to make them feel complete does not mean they fear the relationship. Sometimes it means that they value other things more at the time."
When it becomes a LIFETIME of not choosing marriage/committment or a family it DOES speak to what is more important to feminists. I agree.
posted on April 19, 2007 11:17:28 AM
yup, Linda, we don't agree.
why do you say:
Most have no problems stepping outside their 'partnership' once in a while.
The gay partners I have known state quite the opposite ~ the risks are greater to stepping out on a gay relationship ~ one night stands especially. Aids has taken it's toll on casual sex more for gays than for heterosexual couples.
Maybe I have been privy to a smaller amount of gay relationships, however, I have found that these couples (all male, so that might make a difference) are mature and committed to each other ~ they have 'found' themselves and are able to be in complete monogamous relationships. The amount of respect between them is wonderful. The long term commitments that I have seen in many male-female relationships seems to decline over time, yet in these male-male relationships the bond and mutual respect grows stronger. THAT is why you see the divorce rate soaring, IMHO. Lack of tolerance, lack of maturity, lack of respect. People entering relationships with blinders on, thinking that they are going to change someone or that the other person will change over time.
People getting married in their twenties are rarely mature enough nor do they have a strong enough sense of self to enter a relationship with their eyes open. People change and life changes people. Relationships need to be strong to endure and grow with those changes.
posted on April 19, 2007 11:21:16 AM
Most of the gay couples I know that have children are incredible parents ~ they appreciate the opportunity to experience this part of life more than a typical 'breeder'.
No welfare moms.
Not on food stamps, better financial position, higher level of education.
Given the choice, I'd rather grow up with a stable gay couple than in a foster home.
posted on April 19, 2007 11:28:45 AM
linduh, why is it so hard for you to understand that a "feminist" is not ONE THING.
There are many feminists who are married with children, love their husbands and their families ...they are not demons who want to subjugate men...
Now, why haven't you given up your right to vote?
Why won't you give all your earnings to your father or husband.
Whay haven't you given up the right to your own children?
Why haven't you given up the right to own property?
Did you willingly earn less than the man next to you even though you did the same work?
Do you really think evil demons got YOU those rights?
linduh, ""Even if my choice of reasons are not correct, fenix, a lot of feminists don't marry or get divorced and never remarry. Few choose to have children and even fewer chose to commit and raise a family."""
SO WHAT!
They have that RIGHT! The right to CHOOSE what they want to do.....Just because YOU were such a wienie YOU needed to be taken care of like a mental incompetant...doesn't mean ALL women want that.
posted on April 19, 2007 11:41:01 AM
Why do I say that, Zoomin?
Because that's what the gay men say themselves. Do you read any of the gay chat sites? I have. And while I'm not speaking of ALL gay men who say they are in a committed relations....I'm talking about especially the young gay crowd. The bathtub crowd. They share they try to remain faithful to only one partner...but admit that ususally they just can't. And that many agree that this is acceptable in their 'committted' relationships.
And on the aid/hiv subject.....again their rates of contacting both are on the way up again. That's NOT happening because the majority of gays are being 'faithful' to one partner. They're known to be VERY promiscious...with many having 100 different, anonymous partners in their lives.
Maybe reading some gay websites yourself might enlighten you to the actions of those you don't know.
posted on April 19, 2007 11:46:46 AM
And speaking of welfare moms....that ties right in what another thing helen said that I totally disagree with.
she said, in part: "Qualities of good or ideal parenting are not determined by gender."
Sure 'ideal' parenting is 'determined by gender'.
Why do liberals believe there are so many SINGLE women with children on our welfare rolls? Because they're not married and don't have a partner HELPING them to support their children. Give them what they need financially.
Two parents are better prepared to take financial care of their own children...while single mothers are most certainly NOT [on the whole] able to do the same thing.
I guess one persons 'ideal' is not that of another....like. I don't see it being 'ideal' when children are raised on welfare. It only teaches them MORE gov. dependence...while the liberal left seems to LOVE.
posted on April 19, 2007 11:53:11 AM
ideal roles by gender?
You chose the welfare moms so who is the ideal parent there?
The MEN who leave
or
The WOMEN who keep getting knocked up to stay on the welfare wagon because the MEN don't feel the need to be responsible.
That's your male-female gender based role model?
If the world were true to your ideals on how men and women need each other,this wouldn't be such a huge problem!
Gay couples adopting unwanted, uncared for, imperfect children from an overburdened system.
I like that.
Much better role model.
Raising strong independent children ready to face the world and it's adversities.
posted on April 19, 2007 11:54:52 AM
I understand that, Zoomin.
And those gay posters are also speaking of their personal experiences.
=====
On "People getting married in their twenties are rarely mature enough nor do they have a strong enough sense of self to enter a relationship with their eyes open."
I disagree with that too. IF you look to the stats of the longest term marriages they WERE those who married young and grew together. Supported each other as their lives and society changed around them.
Those are the dinasours that HAVE made their marriages work/whose marriages areN'T like those of the 'new generation' where if you can't get along...just leave is the new motto. Rather than stick with your committment and work it out. Make it a choice to work it out.
Yes, that requires much effort at times....but THEY are the successful ones....not all those entering their third or forth marriage or those who just remain single.
"People change and life changes people. Relationships need to be strong to endure and grow with those changes."
As they DO in supportive relationships like roadsmith mentioned.
posted on April 19, 2007 12:03:07 PM
No, Zoomin, somehow you're talking my statement of welfare moms NOT providing 'ideal' parenting the wrong way.
I am NOT giving an 'out' to deadbeat dads...in any way, shape or form.
What I am pointing out is that a child with only a mother who can't support her own children....and many of the most successful women who CAN are the rarity in our society...not the norm.
This is another liberal position that I have never agreed with. That hey...who needs to get married to have children? I can have them on my own.
But the majority can't SUPPORT them 'on their own'. And the liberals 'do whatever you want to do' thinking has supported and now chosen to pay for the decisions of those who chose to take this route.
Imo, just one more 'what I'm doing is not hurting anyone' deception. It has hurt our society as WE the taxpayers are then FORCED to provide for their every need.
They make that choice? Fine...then left them also take care of the consequences themselves. Don't put MORE taxes on the citizens to support their lifestyle choices. They're adults who made their OWN decisions....let them be adult and deal with it.
posted on April 19, 2007 12:10:17 PM
When I speak of young people that are entering marriage before they are mature enough to make the right choices:
they are the one's who feel as you do, that it is what they are supposed to do.
They keep remarrying ~ trying to do what has been forced upon them by society ~ to be married and have kids and live happily ever after. Too quick to marry, too quick to get out.
Marriage is an option.
Marriage is not mandatory.
Why do these people feel the need to commit?
It is not a 'real' feeling, it is why they have been brought up to believe.
I believe in marriage.
I also believe that people need to be independent on their own before they can successfully become part of a couple.
posted on April 19, 2007 12:21:29 PM
I can take care of myself, I can take care of my kids.
I am educated and will always find a way to support my family.
My ex-husband did not feel that way.
He is educated, a product of one of the dinosaur marriages that you refer to.
Has no clue how to be a father or husband.
His role model was a father that was never around because he had a family to support. His mother worked full time and lived for her kids.
My boys biological father does not have time to go to sporting events, school meetings, etc because he has to work.
He can make his own hours, but chooses not to since he has no clue what it is like to be an involved parent.
He is not mean.
He is not stupid.
He is not abusive.
He is not a deadbeat.
He is also not a good role model for my kids.
Not a good example of what a father should be.
Not a good example of what a husband should be.
Not a good example of what a man should be.
I could have stayed in an empty relationship with this man but chose to leave because my children deserve more. I did not want them to grow up to be like him.
In your world, I would have stayed with him.
I chose to give my children more, with or without him.
Shame on me and my feminism?
I disagree.
posted on April 19, 2007 12:36:38 PM
Good, zoomin!
Younger women today (anyone under 50) should get down on their knees to thank us feminists for what we did in the 60s and 70s. Almost all the feminists I knew then were in good marriages -- yes, with men! But we all knew there had to be more equality of opportunity in and out of marriage than there was at that time. (Do consider, Linda, that the woman suffragettes were also feminists! Would you not want to vote?)
Something I've noticed is that the fathers who have daughters have been much more open to equality of opportunity than those just with sons. Ditto for the women who just have sons. It's not that they couldn't come to care, but they're not seeing beyond their own children's futures.
We had two daughters, and after the second was born I joined the feminist movement. Then when our son was born and they put him in my arms, I became a raging pacifist. I looked at that darling little guy and knew I'd never want him killed in an unjust war.
And Linda--trust me--there's never been a documented sighting of a bra burning! That was a figment of some media guy's imagination way back, and unfortunately it stuck. You might want to eliminate that from your vocabulary.
What I see, at least in the media, is younger women who are clueless about the battles fought so they could have job and education opportunities and control their own financial futures. And they're wearing spike heels, those darned short skirts cut up to the wazoo and the blouses cut down to the navel, objectivizing themselves all over again and undoing some of the work we fought so hard to obtain.
In the workshops we women attended in the 80s, we were told that, to be taken seriously in the work world, we needed to take a good look at our hair. That long or "big" hair said we'd come to play, not to work. They pointed to the women elected at every level and at how few of them had hair beyond their shoulders. We paid attention. We learned a lot about how the world works. One seminar instructor said that we might rail against those unwritten rules in the business world, but he warned that we wouldn't live long enough to change the rules, so our choice was either to pay attention or get out of the game.
I shudder to think what girls these days are learning from the business attire of women on TV and in the movies. Yikes.
_____________________
Dogs have owners, cats have staff.
