the unnaturalness of it all

[greg2]

... in response to Re: And this is the problem, posted by KenC on Jul 21, 2002

Ken,

Ken, you are wrong about what I would say. I can not say anything. I could not say anything for her particular case unless I knew the specifics of each of her marriages and how responsible the previous men were in their demise and how vulnerable she placed herself and how that impacted her. I also would have to know about her learning experiences relative to women in her life's cirlce and if any of these women were negagively impacted by irresponsible men and thus making her defensive. Does that make sense?

Before, I was speaking about generalities, this is a  specific case - totally different issue than generalities as generalities do not always apply to the individual or otherwise it would not be a generality but an absolute. I never implied that this was an absolute.

Are you implying that you do not agree that there is truth to what I said about men having their share of the responsibility in all of this?

Men were in the seat of power. When those in power treat those below them fairly, they usually do not rebel. I am not saying that this is all the fault of men. I am just saying that the male half of the species is not without fault. That is all.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to over simplification, posted by greg2 on Jul 21, 2002

I disagree with your premise...therefore, I will also be forced to disagree with your conclusion.

However you put it... Calling women "the weaker sex" ... or saying that "men had the power" in... say.. 1950... is to buy into the idea that men and women should have both always been in the workplace, sharing the workload, and competing "fairly."

I disagree.

A woman who stayed at home, and raised the family was not inferior to a man who went to work. She was not a weaker person. She did not lose "power".

She simply had a different role in the family.

My mother stayed home to raise the family.

Did I think that she was weaker than my father? Or that he had "the power" or control?

Hahaha!

That's a laugh...

[greg2]

... in response to Power?, posted by MarkInTx on Jul 21, 2002


Mark: I disagree with your premise...therefore, I will also be forced to disagree with your conclusion.

Greg: Mark, I would be curious to hear what you think my premise was and what my conclusion was. Then I might be able to comment.

Mark: However you put it... Calling women "the weaker sex" ... or saying that "men had the power" in... say.. 1950... is to buy into the idea that men and women should have both always been in the workplace, sharing the workload, and competing "fairly."

Greg: There you go again stating that you are quoting me when such is not the case.

Here is what I said "Men were in the seat of power. When those in power treat those below them fairly, they usually do not rebel. I am not saying that this is all the fault of men. I am just saying that the male half of the species is not without fault. That is all." (I was referring to the business world in this quote as we were discussing the feminist movement and women competing with men in the working world today yet losing their femininity in the whole process. The men were in the seat of power relative to the business world and controlling it.)

Now even if I had said what you incorrectly posted as a quote, how can you tell me that by saying such, I am buying into the idea that men and women should have both always been in the workplace, sharing the workload, and competing "fairly."

Could you explain how you came to that deduction? Because it certainly is not my conclusion - it is yours. Help me out here so that I can understand what you are saying.  

Mark: I disagree.

Greg: I am not even sure I know what you disagree with. Is it your own conclusion about what you have decided that I must be buying into (which I do not) or is it something I actually wrote? Please clarify.

Mark: A woman who stayed at home, and raised the family was not inferior to a man who went to work. She was not a weaker person. She did not lose "power".

Greg: Where did I say in this post that the woman was weaker? I said that the men at that time were in the seat of power - referring to the world of income.

There is no weaker sex and no one person should have the power in the family if it is a balanced family as far as I am concerned.

[thesearch]

... in response to You lost me, posted by greg2 on Jul 22, 2002

With our last debate that went no where except one big circle, I decided I did not want to do that again.  If the problem could be that I did not understand you, instead of debating it, I just simply ask you a question to clarify.  May end a lot of going in circles.

But, I guess you do not have any answers to those questions or you are having to really think about this.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: And this is the problem, posted by KenC on Jul 21, 2002

Wow, Ken, you're up early today!

I agree with you... except that some of the women didn't buy into the crap... yet still have to live with it. Even the women who decide to stay at home and be a mom have to deal with the patronizing stares and comments.

But about the provider thing... you are right.

My first ex wife (That sounds SO bad!) used to tell me "You think just because your the provider..." stuff. She didn't work because she couldn't hold a job. But she was quick to criticize me for mine.

And, of course, this stuff would come up when I was tired on the weekend, and she would want me to "help" cleaning up around the house. (Which I could see, if she worked... but since she didn't I always wondered about that...)

Anyway... guess what was the first thing she missed when I moved out?

Right!

I guess she discovered that being a provider wasn't as easy as it looks. (She had a car repossessed, and very nearly lost the house I gave her...)

[greg2]

... in response to Re: Re: And this is the problem, posted by MarkInTx on Jul 21, 2002

I had the same problem. My wife did not work and complained about taking care of the house!!! She did not even do everything. She hired people to do things and complained about handling that even. She felt that I should help clean the house on the weekends. I told her that by the weekend everything should be in order so that we could go out as a couple and have fun. She would tend to do nothing during the week except play, visit friends in her beamer convert, have her hair and nails done etc and then want to have us do the house work on my weekends off!! I called bull to that.

She had a charmed life she discovered once I was not there to provide for her.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: And this is the problem, posted by greg2 on Jul 21, 2002

Well...except that I couldn't afford to buy her a beamer...

I had this strange notion that since she did not work (and this was before we even had a child!) that her job WAS the house.

I could never understand why she thought I should "pitch in" on it. And she would watch Oprah and such and tell me I was just like all of the other guys on the show -- because they wouldn't help with the housework, either.

The fact that the women profiled on the show all worked never seemed to occur to her...

My favorite scene happened on weekend when a friend of mine called me and invited me to join him at the lake. He was going to come over and pick me up.

My wife was horrified.

"Have him meet you at the lake!" she said.

"Why?"

"Because I don't want him coming here! I don't want him to see the house!" (it was a mess)

I was puzzled. "Why not?"

"I don't want him thinking we live like this!" she said, indicating the mess.

I looked around and then said: "But... we do..."

She got so mad she left.

[BubbaGump]

... in response to Wow...sounds familiar, posted by MarkInTx on Jul 21, 2002

but I didn't have it any better.  Different set of problems.

[greg2]

... in response to I pity both you guys..., posted by BubbaGump on Jul 22, 2002

I go there again. LOL

[Mark H]

... in response to the unnaturalness of it all, posted by KenC on Jul 20, 2002

Ken,
Sweet as usual. Very nice insights. I'm sure there are a myriad of AW just dying to straighten you out! Just got back from my parents house in San Antonio, love being down there with them. My brother and his wife from Spain were there also. It was so refreshing to see them, she is the same way as you speak. Foreign born is a key. Back to reality as I am on call tomorrow.

See ya,
Mark H.

[greg2]

... in response to Re: the unnaturalness of it all, posted by Mark H on Jul 20, 2002

Too bad, sometimes I think that I should to support my country. But, American cars are a bit like AW me thinks.

[Ryan]

... in response to I do not purchase American Autos either, posted by greg2 on Jul 21, 2002

No Comment.......

[greg2]

... in response to the unnaturalness of it all, posted by KenC on Jul 20, 2002

Ken,There is one big difference now relative to the forties but then there is another interesting observation that goes contrary to what I have observed relative to the FSU.

The big difference is that families stayed together back in the forties. Women who made themselves vulnerable by allowing the man to develop his career felt more secure in not developing their own ability to be a provider.

With the erosion and deterioration of the family unit, women have been left vulnerable. The fact that they trusted their men to be there came back and bit them in the ass.

Women had to think about themselves. They had to think about being able to provide for them and their children - especially since some men left them holding the bag relative to providing for the children - yet they were not prepared. Women in America have done what they had to to deal with their own situation.

Men in America are just as responsible for what has happened, maybe even more. I believe that the later is the case.

Women from the FSU however, have dealt with the same problems but for some reason came out of this challenge different than American Women.  Why is this? At the time of posting this, I have not contemplated such to come to my own conclusion - but will in my own incubation period upon thinking about an issue such as this.

[KenC]

... in response to Yea but, posted by greg2 on Jul 20, 2002

Greg,
I am not speaking of the "forties" but of as early as the "sixties".  (Only forty some years ago)
KenC

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Yea but, posted by greg2 on Jul 20, 2002


You say that the families stayed together and so women could afford to be vulnerable...

Maybe it is the other way around...

Perhaps, when the women's movement caught hold, and women began marching into the workplace is when families did not stay intact?

This would explain the difference between RWs approach and AWs approach today.

Namely, there has never been a "women's movement" in Russia. The women find themselves as single parents not by their own choosing.

In America, a single mom (remember the Murphy Brown flap?) is held out as a hero. It is encouraged. This is because at the heart of the feminist movement (today) is a lesbian movement. (Think I'm crazy? Why has the president of NOW the past few times been a lesbian?) They need single moms.

Now Rosie O'Donnel gets a show on Nickelodeon to promote lesbians as mothers...

The point is... the American feminist culture has pushed this idea. And many girls have grown up believing it. When they are taught: "You don't need a man..." then when the relationship becomes hard, they say: "I don't need this.." and leave. And, men can leave the woman because: "She can take care of herself. I don't need to stay around..."

That is different from a woman who has had her man taken away from her by circumstances.

After rambling, let me try to make my point (sorry, I am still sleepy this morning...) It comes to this:

The American Woman has the exact results of what she wanted... the Russian Women is trying to make the best of a bad situation that was forced on her.

It is "the change" of the AW that brought about the change in our familes, I believe. Not the other waqy around.

Now... not every AW who finds themselves a single mom wanted it. But they live in a society that encourages it. You cannot separate your fate from your society's. (Ask Lot how that worked in Sodom...)