Brother_Rapp
Banned
So what happen to the guy that she was married to?
Duaghters to *****s, Sons to tricks
- Thread starter Brother_Rapp
- Start date
Giovanni Casanova
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 5,550
- Reaction score
- 18
- Age
- 45
- Location
- Hiding in Penkitten's Linen Closet
You'll have to wait for her to answer that question, if she chooses to.
If you will go up a few posts and see where I asked these questions, you will see that they were directed towards NoMstRight.
**True, you did use her screen name, but you quoted my text, see your post #43. I noticed this mix up but just let it slide**
Why are you answering? Are you two the same individual? Sure helps to stuff a poll doesn’t it. Now I have to wonder about that poll.
**Now dont get all pissy until you recheck your posting, it was a simple mistake. You "quoted" my text but just addressed it to her. It's a b*tch not to be perfect aint it, welcome to the real world**
Take care,
[/B][/QUOTE]
**True, you did use her screen name, but you quoted my text, see your post #43. I noticed this mix up but just let it slide**
Why are you answering? Are you two the same individual? Sure helps to stuff a poll doesn’t it. Now I have to wonder about that poll.
**Now dont get all pissy until you recheck your posting, it was a simple mistake. You "quoted" my text but just addressed it to her. It's a b*tch not to be perfect aint it, welcome to the real world**
Take care,
[/B][/QUOTE]
Brother_Rapp
Banned
Okay.. I see what I did. Thank you for straightening it out for me.
Please allow me a few minutes to scratch my head and think a bit about YOUR words.
Coffee break.
Please allow me a few minutes to scratch my head and think a bit about YOUR words.
Coffee break.
As a person who grew up practically without a father and a well meaning mother, I think I'm more qualified than other people posting here, since I've lived through what you only talk about.
I understand both BR's points and penkitten's points, and I think a healthy merging of them is an ideal explanation and solution.
No matter how well meaning a single mother is (and mine was), a child needs both parents for complete mental development. Because of the lack of a father figure in my formative years, I didn't even know what it meant to be a "man." It took me years to get over that, and this site was instrumental in helping me as well (check out pooks article "BE A MAN").
Sometimes a woman is abused and mistreated and has no choice, and that is understandable. But I think women underestimate the importance of introducing another, albeit more suitable, father figure once again into their children's lives. To ask one person, male or female, to take up both parental roles is not only impossible, but very foolish as well. I think if we all took a healthy look at ourselves, we'd not only be able to see our limitations, but to respect them.
Those statistics on that webpage quoted above (http://www.fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm) are pretty grim, but I believe them, as I can verify them through personal experience. Women who encourage other women to stay single and raise their children, have unfortunately misappropriated their enthusiasm into an activity which will most likely, maybe even irreparably, damage their children's well being. This applies for single father families just as well.
There is a reason why studies show that boys suffer from more separation anxiety than girls. Boys in the womb, for the first 40 days or so, are actually girls. Only then does the Y chromosome kick in, and sex development begins. Practically his whole identity and being is changed in that process. I don't remember that experience, but I would think it's pretty traumatic, and probably lodged somewhere in the deep subconscious. That begins the long and strange road that is a man's life.
Once a boy is born, he begins to develop a powerful connection to his mother. She's the one who bore him, she's around him all the time, she feeds him, etc. The boy has this love for his mother, so when he can start talking, what does he say? "Mommy, I want to be like you." And the mother slaps his hand and says, "No! You have to be like your daddy!" Once again, a traumatic separation. So the boy begins this separation from his mother (which is healthy of course), and starts to attach to his father, to learn how to be a man. It is in these formative years that a father is so much needed. If the mother shows a boy how to be a man, the result is much sexual and gender-based confusion.
So the boy decides to be like his father. When it's time to go to college, or get married, or whenever the man is ready to leave the home and start his own home, once again he is separated. "Go off!", that father says, "and build your own home!"
Girls follow a straighter path. There is no DNA manipulation in the womb, no chromosome messing around. When the girl is three, and says, "Mommy I want to be like you," Mommy happily obliges and shows her what it's like to be a woman. When the girl gets married to start a new family, she does it as a helper to the husband. Why as a helper?
Because traditionally, it is still the husband's role to support and to take care of that family. The state of the family is a direct reflection of how well of a job a man is doing. Also, I have seen that daughters retain a much longer and stronger connection to their parents/initial family than sons do. How often do sons call home? The man practically forsakes all to build a new home and life with his wife. He basically has no one to rely on but himself, and his wife for support. Obviously this puts much stress and anxiety on him.
Women will often complain that they cannot understand why men have such a fear of failure. And that's true, they DON'T understand. Only someone who was walked down this twisted and treacherous road would understand, and the only ones equipped to do that are men themselves.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the 2 sexes are very different, but fortunately, very complimentary. Today's feminist society has unfortunately brainwashed many people into believing that the gender difference is irrelevant, and logically this has resulted in disastrous results, including the breakdown of the familial unit and society in general.
Disturbingly, this unexpected and unparalleled avarice that today's women have displayed has left both men and women even more in the dark. I'm not saying that men are blameless, but it is safe to say that society was not prepared for this type of female aggression, or for its cataclysmic results. In addition, although men have done injustices to women in the past, this gives no right for women to repay them in kind. Two wrongs, no matter how you look at it, do NOT make a right.
This has resulted in a society abundant with hateful women and confused men. Men born and brought up in this type of society are mentally castrated, leaving them upset, but unfortunately, utterly confused as why they feel this lingering discontent in their lives. Women are brought up with a mental, virtual set of testicles, with much misplaced (not to mention fabricated) aggression, striving to succeed and not really understanding why. They are running on a treadmill with full force and power, but regrettably, they're still at the same place when they get off.
The aftermath of this? Look at society today. Depression rates are skyrocketing, suicide rates are making new highs, everyone is unhappy. A stark contrast to the "simpler" times only 50 years ago. I shudder at what the next 50 years will bring in terms of social and societal development. Hopefully, by realizing certain truths and making correct choices, we will equip our children, both men and women, with the correct skills and minds to tackle these future obstacles.
I understand both BR's points and penkitten's points, and I think a healthy merging of them is an ideal explanation and solution.
No matter how well meaning a single mother is (and mine was), a child needs both parents for complete mental development. Because of the lack of a father figure in my formative years, I didn't even know what it meant to be a "man." It took me years to get over that, and this site was instrumental in helping me as well (check out pooks article "BE A MAN").
Sometimes a woman is abused and mistreated and has no choice, and that is understandable. But I think women underestimate the importance of introducing another, albeit more suitable, father figure once again into their children's lives. To ask one person, male or female, to take up both parental roles is not only impossible, but very foolish as well. I think if we all took a healthy look at ourselves, we'd not only be able to see our limitations, but to respect them.
Those statistics on that webpage quoted above (http://www.fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm) are pretty grim, but I believe them, as I can verify them through personal experience. Women who encourage other women to stay single and raise their children, have unfortunately misappropriated their enthusiasm into an activity which will most likely, maybe even irreparably, damage their children's well being. This applies for single father families just as well.
There is a reason why studies show that boys suffer from more separation anxiety than girls. Boys in the womb, for the first 40 days or so, are actually girls. Only then does the Y chromosome kick in, and sex development begins. Practically his whole identity and being is changed in that process. I don't remember that experience, but I would think it's pretty traumatic, and probably lodged somewhere in the deep subconscious. That begins the long and strange road that is a man's life.
Once a boy is born, he begins to develop a powerful connection to his mother. She's the one who bore him, she's around him all the time, she feeds him, etc. The boy has this love for his mother, so when he can start talking, what does he say? "Mommy, I want to be like you." And the mother slaps his hand and says, "No! You have to be like your daddy!" Once again, a traumatic separation. So the boy begins this separation from his mother (which is healthy of course), and starts to attach to his father, to learn how to be a man. It is in these formative years that a father is so much needed. If the mother shows a boy how to be a man, the result is much sexual and gender-based confusion.
So the boy decides to be like his father. When it's time to go to college, or get married, or whenever the man is ready to leave the home and start his own home, once again he is separated. "Go off!", that father says, "and build your own home!"
Girls follow a straighter path. There is no DNA manipulation in the womb, no chromosome messing around. When the girl is three, and says, "Mommy I want to be like you," Mommy happily obliges and shows her what it's like to be a woman. When the girl gets married to start a new family, she does it as a helper to the husband. Why as a helper?
Because traditionally, it is still the husband's role to support and to take care of that family. The state of the family is a direct reflection of how well of a job a man is doing. Also, I have seen that daughters retain a much longer and stronger connection to their parents/initial family than sons do. How often do sons call home? The man practically forsakes all to build a new home and life with his wife. He basically has no one to rely on but himself, and his wife for support. Obviously this puts much stress and anxiety on him.
Women will often complain that they cannot understand why men have such a fear of failure. And that's true, they DON'T understand. Only someone who was walked down this twisted and treacherous road would understand, and the only ones equipped to do that are men themselves.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the 2 sexes are very different, but fortunately, very complimentary. Today's feminist society has unfortunately brainwashed many people into believing that the gender difference is irrelevant, and logically this has resulted in disastrous results, including the breakdown of the familial unit and society in general.
Disturbingly, this unexpected and unparalleled avarice that today's women have displayed has left both men and women even more in the dark. I'm not saying that men are blameless, but it is safe to say that society was not prepared for this type of female aggression, or for its cataclysmic results. In addition, although men have done injustices to women in the past, this gives no right for women to repay them in kind. Two wrongs, no matter how you look at it, do NOT make a right.
This has resulted in a society abundant with hateful women and confused men. Men born and brought up in this type of society are mentally castrated, leaving them upset, but unfortunately, utterly confused as why they feel this lingering discontent in their lives. Women are brought up with a mental, virtual set of testicles, with much misplaced (not to mention fabricated) aggression, striving to succeed and not really understanding why. They are running on a treadmill with full force and power, but regrettably, they're still at the same place when they get off.
The aftermath of this? Look at society today. Depression rates are skyrocketing, suicide rates are making new highs, everyone is unhappy. A stark contrast to the "simpler" times only 50 years ago. I shudder at what the next 50 years will bring in terms of social and societal development. Hopefully, by realizing certain truths and making correct choices, we will equip our children, both men and women, with the correct skills and minds to tackle these future obstacles.
Brother_Rapp
Banned
Nice post.
Similar experience here.
You started out making some great points in this post. And then you blew it by continuing the 'let's blame the chicks.'
Unparalled avarice? The desire to be economically independent is now avarice?
But hold on a minute here.
Economics do play a large role in the debate, there's no escaping it. Economics do play a role because without economic power, one has no political power. Until the last 150 years, women in the western world didn't even have the power to vote in an election.
Seeing as though you and Brother Caveboy can't seem to find it in yourselves to point out some of the ways men have played a part in creating the situation being whined about, I'll throw you a few bones:
Women, whose ability to use logic and ration is every bit equal to mens', were by societal and governmental decree - not just Darwin - limited in everything affecting their daily lives. Our forebearers were not only not allowed to have a political voice, they were not allowed to own property; at various points in even western history, they were not allowed out on the streets without certain dictated dresswear.
In the 20th century, some were not allowed to hold a job if they wanted to wear the clothing of their own choosing.
With the coming of the industrial age (a change driven by the avarice of MEN), world economy no longer revolved purely around brawn, where men in most cases were clearly superior.
This opened up the workforce to women to take jobs where they are/were able to perform equal to any man's abilities, thus bringing economic power.
Now as we are in the information age, the genders have never been on more equal footing in the ability to perform workforce functions.
Unless someone wants to and can bring us back to an era where brawn, and only brawn, is necessary for economic power, the tradition of the agrarian society roles is never coming back, at least not in the way it had been.
I will be the first to say: things are good when we allow you to be the little cave-grunters you are. Ain't nothin' cuter than a guy with a dopey grin, a barbecue spatula in one hand and a beer in the other (providing he's not an alcoholic).
But I'm not going back. As messed up as things may be right now, as a woman, and one who grew up in a broken home, I'll take living in the 21st century with its divorce and all of its other hang-ups over living at any other time in recorded history.
If men want to renegotiate gender roles in society most women would probably be open to listening, but if men want to turn the clock back to a time when we had no options or choice in directing our own lives, it just ain't gonna happen.
The single largest influence on the changing of gender roles has been economic influence. Stop blaming feminists for taking advantage of the avenues that were opened to them as the world economy changed. Stop blaming the feminsts who were finally able to start achieving what women have always wanted: the ability to decide our own destiny. If you want to blame someone, blame those who decided to limit womens' roles in society in the first place. Take Darwin's lessons to heart: learn to adapt.
penkitten
Master Don Juan
he left.
penkitten
Master Don Juan
amen!
Brother_Rapp
Banned
It was WW1 & WW 2 that presented the opportunity for women to enter the workforce. Those two events together with surrendering by pyssy whiped men to women the right to vote, were the major factors in the decline of the American family.
Women not only wanted a political revolution, but a sexual one as well. That came with her new found independence. So gals started opening up their legs quicker and quicker. Single mothers are their own FYCKING fault. If and / or when they become disatisfied with the finances, they nag the guy and nag the guy till he goes and screws somebody else. When a guy wants sex he does want an argument. But gals sure know how to get those hard hitting divorce laws into effect and take him for every dime they can after they cause him to go find another piece of TVVAT don't they? One cVnt is just as good as another. The difference in any woman is how she uses that mouth of her'. To grip or to talk. The grippers have my vote and most guys as well. Men want women that will put out and shut up.
To all you gals that can't deal with it, it ain't going away. You cannot turn back the hands of time till before creation.Be mad all you want, but you'll be by yourself or with a pyssy whiped guy that you really don't love but need for the sex to have around.
All women want to be dominated. I'm going to tell you guys what a woman's problem is.
A WOMAN’S PROBLEM (besides crampin’ up once a month and menopause)
A woman basically believes that her **** can control any man’s **** plus cut off his balls. That’s what her mother has taught her and tricks have shown her. But she continually seeks a man that she can respect and who can’t be dominated by her or other women. She treats each encounter with a man as a test of her beliefs or the object of her ever on going search for a real man. She wants you to turn the ***** down. No matter how much she pretties herself up, she does not want the ***** to be first in your brain.
A woman wants to relieve herself of the borden ofd running it but will nag crap from the peanut gallery every now and then. Don't worry about it fellas. They can't help themeselves
Those independent gals don't really want to be paying all that money for batteries.They want a real man.
Women not only wanted a political revolution, but a sexual one as well. That came with her new found independence. So gals started opening up their legs quicker and quicker. Single mothers are their own FYCKING fault. If and / or when they become disatisfied with the finances, they nag the guy and nag the guy till he goes and screws somebody else. When a guy wants sex he does want an argument. But gals sure know how to get those hard hitting divorce laws into effect and take him for every dime they can after they cause him to go find another piece of TVVAT don't they? One cVnt is just as good as another. The difference in any woman is how she uses that mouth of her'. To grip or to talk. The grippers have my vote and most guys as well. Men want women that will put out and shut up.
To all you gals that can't deal with it, it ain't going away. You cannot turn back the hands of time till before creation.Be mad all you want, but you'll be by yourself or with a pyssy whiped guy that you really don't love but need for the sex to have around.
All women want to be dominated. I'm going to tell you guys what a woman's problem is.
A WOMAN’S PROBLEM (besides crampin’ up once a month and menopause)
A woman basically believes that her **** can control any man’s **** plus cut off his balls. That’s what her mother has taught her and tricks have shown her. But she continually seeks a man that she can respect and who can’t be dominated by her or other women. She treats each encounter with a man as a test of her beliefs or the object of her ever on going search for a real man. She wants you to turn the ***** down. No matter how much she pretties herself up, she does not want the ***** to be first in your brain.
A woman wants to relieve herself of the borden ofd running it but will nag crap from the peanut gallery every now and then. Don't worry about it fellas. They can't help themeselves
Those independent gals don't really want to be paying all that money for batteries.They want a real man.
NotMsRight
New Member
On Unconditional Love and "The Way It Is"
Bro_Rapp
Does unconditionally mean that she will follow him and do as he says do? Qualify the way you are putting unconditionally. Come on back with those reservations that you want her to have in her head.
Unconditionally means unconditionally – but you oh-so-conveniently left of the rest of my paragraph. First, I would hope that I'd've raised my daughter so that she would have enough self-confidence not to fall in love with a man who orders her around in the manner you have described in your prior posts. (And that I'd've raised my sons to know better.) Second – in a relationship of mutual unconditional love, both partners will want to do what makes the other person happy. One will not be "TELLING" the other what to do. It doesn't work that way (in a healthy, mutually respectful relationship). That being said – in the very rare event where there is a conflict in "desires" or views of what is the best way for the family to go, I'd not personally have a problem with the man being the "tie-breaker." However, that *only* works, when the rest of what I've described above is present.
So if given a choice between love and security which would you hope she choose. Either one or the other please.
Love.
No contest.
I've watched marriages both ways. With true, mutual love, security is found, regardless of economic circumstances. Without true, mutual love, all the money/"financial security" in the world isn't enough for a happy life or a healthy home (and thus healthy kids).
Partner? Yes. He does his job and she does her’. What’s the problem?
Partner - YES. No problem with that. The *Problem* is that I don't agree with you re: what HIS job automatically is vs. what HER job automatically is. In a partnership - each person uses his/her respective gifts to the fullest to the betterment of the partnership.
You should have hoped that they would have thought about not having kids till they got their shyt together.
I do not think that the fact that parents both work means that they don't have their act together.
But do you think that you will ever find a guy that you can just hand over your paycheck to and trust he will do the right thing with the money?
If a guy I fall in love with is great at managing money, that's a bonus – and it will be great to have a partner in that aspect of my life. When I need a financial manager, I hire one. I don't need to marry one for that purpose.
Doesn’t matter who makes the most if both are working. What matters is who controls the finances.
Yes – I've seen how big an issue CONTROL is for you via your prior posts. A partnership is just that – a partnership – wherein each person brings his/her gifts to the table. If she's better at controlling/managing finances, she should be the one doing it; if he's better at it, then he certainly should be the one doing it. One's chromosomes, however, do not automatically qualify one for that position.
Why are you equating a large part of your argument in the direction of a guy’s sexual performance? A guy doesn’t think that his sole value is the amount of money he brings home.
True for many guys, thank goodness. Did not appear to be true of you per your prior posts.
All men want to be able to support their family.
Ha. ::::choking::::: .. aHEM. Yessir, absolutely sir. That explains why a national registry was set up to force these men to pay their child support. ::::still coughting:::
You ask any unmarried guy if he wants to be able to support his family when he gets married or if he wants a woman to have a job as a qualifier to his marring her and they will choose the former by a wide margin.
Go look at the profiles on match.com, sir (or, for that matter, any other service where men and women list who they are and what they want in a relationship). There are almost NO men looking for a woman without a job – almost EVERY man has, as a "qualifier" in his profile, that the woman he dates have a job/career. And MANY profiles refer at some point to the woman having a career and/or being financially stable on her own.
I’m not saying that it’s right or wrong. I’m saying that that’s the way it is.
Every statistic – and all other available evidence - directly contradicts your view of "the way it is."
They [the Amish] don’t have ghettos do they? How many single mothers does it’s culture produce?
Not unless you consider their standard of living to be ghetto living. And of course no single mothers – although it definitely happens, they get excommunicated immediately. Problem solved. (For the community. Not for the woman.)
Bro_Rapp
Does unconditionally mean that she will follow him and do as he says do? Qualify the way you are putting unconditionally. Come on back with those reservations that you want her to have in her head.
Unconditionally means unconditionally – but you oh-so-conveniently left of the rest of my paragraph. First, I would hope that I'd've raised my daughter so that she would have enough self-confidence not to fall in love with a man who orders her around in the manner you have described in your prior posts. (And that I'd've raised my sons to know better.) Second – in a relationship of mutual unconditional love, both partners will want to do what makes the other person happy. One will not be "TELLING" the other what to do. It doesn't work that way (in a healthy, mutually respectful relationship). That being said – in the very rare event where there is a conflict in "desires" or views of what is the best way for the family to go, I'd not personally have a problem with the man being the "tie-breaker." However, that *only* works, when the rest of what I've described above is present.
So if given a choice between love and security which would you hope she choose. Either one or the other please.
Love.
No contest.
I've watched marriages both ways. With true, mutual love, security is found, regardless of economic circumstances. Without true, mutual love, all the money/"financial security" in the world isn't enough for a happy life or a healthy home (and thus healthy kids).
Partner? Yes. He does his job and she does her’. What’s the problem?
Partner - YES. No problem with that. The *Problem* is that I don't agree with you re: what HIS job automatically is vs. what HER job automatically is. In a partnership - each person uses his/her respective gifts to the fullest to the betterment of the partnership.
You should have hoped that they would have thought about not having kids till they got their shyt together.
I do not think that the fact that parents both work means that they don't have their act together.
But do you think that you will ever find a guy that you can just hand over your paycheck to and trust he will do the right thing with the money?
If a guy I fall in love with is great at managing money, that's a bonus – and it will be great to have a partner in that aspect of my life. When I need a financial manager, I hire one. I don't need to marry one for that purpose.
Doesn’t matter who makes the most if both are working. What matters is who controls the finances.
Yes – I've seen how big an issue CONTROL is for you via your prior posts. A partnership is just that – a partnership – wherein each person brings his/her gifts to the table. If she's better at controlling/managing finances, she should be the one doing it; if he's better at it, then he certainly should be the one doing it. One's chromosomes, however, do not automatically qualify one for that position.
Why are you equating a large part of your argument in the direction of a guy’s sexual performance? A guy doesn’t think that his sole value is the amount of money he brings home.
True for many guys, thank goodness. Did not appear to be true of you per your prior posts.
All men want to be able to support their family.
Ha. ::::choking::::: .. aHEM. Yessir, absolutely sir. That explains why a national registry was set up to force these men to pay their child support. ::::still coughting:::
You ask any unmarried guy if he wants to be able to support his family when he gets married or if he wants a woman to have a job as a qualifier to his marring her and they will choose the former by a wide margin.
Go look at the profiles on match.com, sir (or, for that matter, any other service where men and women list who they are and what they want in a relationship). There are almost NO men looking for a woman without a job – almost EVERY man has, as a "qualifier" in his profile, that the woman he dates have a job/career. And MANY profiles refer at some point to the woman having a career and/or being financially stable on her own.
I’m not saying that it’s right or wrong. I’m saying that that’s the way it is.
Every statistic – and all other available evidence - directly contradicts your view of "the way it is."
They [the Amish] don’t have ghettos do they? How many single mothers does it’s culture produce?
Not unless you consider their standard of living to be ghetto living. And of course no single mothers – although it definitely happens, they get excommunicated immediately. Problem solved. (For the community. Not for the woman.)
Brother_Rapp
Banned
A)
“Unconditionally means unconditionally – but you oh-so-conveniently left of the rest of my paragraph. First, I would hope that I'd've raised my daughter so that she would have enough self-confidence not to fall in love with a man who orders her around in the manner you have described in your prior posts. (And that I'd've raised my sons to know better.)
Second – in a relationship of mutual unconditional love, both partners will want to do what makes the other person happy. One will not be "TELLING" the other what to do. It doesn't work that way (in a healthy, mutually respectful relationship).
That being said – in the very rare event where there is a conflict in "desires" or views of what is the best way for the family to go, I'd not personally have a problem with the man being the "tie-breaker." However, that *only* works, when the rest of what I've described above is present.”
B)
If you are admitting that you don’t have a problem with the guy being the “tie-breaker”, then we are in agreement on this point. I believe that you are saying that a guy should be open to consideration of the gal’s views. If so, then we are in agreement.
A)
BROTHER RAPP-So if given a choice between love and security which would you hope she choose. Either one or the other please.
“Love. No contest.
I've watched marriages both ways.
With true, mutual love, security is found, regardless of economic circumstances. Without true, mutual love, all the money/"financial security" in the world isn't enough for a happy life or a healthy home (and thus healthy kids).”
B)
So if two people are in “mutual love” , money and ergo security will just spring up and come to them? And you really believe this?
A)
BROTHER RAPP-Doesn’t matter who makes the most if both are working. What matters is who controls the finances.
Yes – I've seen how big an issue CONTROL is for you via your prior posts. A partnership is just that – a partnership – wherein each person brings his/her gifts to the table. If she's better at controlling/managing finances, she should be the one doing it; if he's better at it, then he certainly should be the one doing it. One's chromosomes, however, do not automatically qualify one for that position.
B)
If you don’t take the training wheels off your little kids bike he’ll never ride on his own. People only do what they HAVE to do to get what they want. As long as you do his traditional role, why should he?
A)
BROTHER RAPP-All men want to be able to support their family.
“Ha. ::::choking::::: .. aHEM. Yessir, absolutely sir. That explains why a national registry was set up to force these men to pay their child support. ::::still coughting:::”
B)
Kids are often seen as a souvenir of a moment of love, lust, sex or whatever you want to call it. If the relationship that produced these little souvenirs sours, the treatment of them can and do catch the fall out from both the parties of the relationship. Child support as well as alimony is looked upon by many as “THE FYCKIN’ I GOT FOR THE FYCKIN’ I DID”. Most men do want to support their families as long as the gal stays within her traditional role and doesn’t nag the hell out of him. But what man will want to have sex with that gal after she’s been BYTCHIN’ in his ear all day long. He still wants some sex. So she ends up pushing him into the arms of another more caring woman. A woman that is supportive of him in whatever it is in which he’s trying to accomplish. Why should he be reduced to jyckin’ off in the bathroom behind her condescending attitude? After being forced out of his home by her and cleaned out in a messy divorce, the guy just can’t see daylight. She’s supposed to get the money to live in a life style that she was accustomed to. That comes out of his pocket. But what about the pyssy that he was accustomed to? Does that come out of her CYNT??? NNNNOOOOOO. Where’s the law now? Where’s the fairness of this? There are many men who feel that it was her fault so let her handle things her way. If she’s having problems, it’s her fault. Give me the kids. But there are a multitude of combinations of reason why some guys have a problem with paying child support as well as alimony. Perhaps another topic can be started on that subject. I would prefer to stay on the one at hand. How about you?
A)
BROTHER RAPP-“You ask any unmarried guy if he wants to be able to support his family when he gets married or if he wants a woman to have a job as a qualifier to his marring her and they will choose the former by a wide margin. “
B)
Poorly stated on my part.
A)
“Go look at the profiles on match.com, sir (or, for that matter, any other service where men and women list who they are and what they want in a relationship). There are almost NO men looking for a woman without a job – almost EVERY man has, as a "qualifier" in his profile, that the woman he dates have a job/career. And MANY profiles refer at some point to the woman having a career and/or being financially stable on her own.”
B)
I believe that if prostitution (a situation where he can pick and choose, then pays, she puts out, shuts the fyck up-accept to swallow, no kids, or alimony and he can kick her out in the morning) were legalized in the U.S. and statistics of GUYS entering into such situations were compared against the number of GUYS listen on those types of sites that you are referring to, there would be more of the former then the ladder.
Those GUYS who are looking for women with jobs want the sex and just don’t want to pay for it while they are dating.
A)
BROTHER RAPP-They [the Amish] don’t have ghettos do they? How many single mothers does it’s culture produce?
“Not unless you consider their standard of living to be ghetto living. And of course no single mothers – although it definitely happens, they get excommunicated immediately. Problem solved. (For the community. Not for the woman.)”
B)
As you said, ”Problem solved”. I would think that those that got excommunicated are being punished by the community and not just by the guy. Fault the law of the Amish if you will, but anybody can walk away. I would also hazard a guess as to there being a smaller percentage of single women with children in the Amish community in comparison to the percentage of single women with children to the overall population of the U.S.
“Unconditionally means unconditionally – but you oh-so-conveniently left of the rest of my paragraph. First, I would hope that I'd've raised my daughter so that she would have enough self-confidence not to fall in love with a man who orders her around in the manner you have described in your prior posts. (And that I'd've raised my sons to know better.)
Second – in a relationship of mutual unconditional love, both partners will want to do what makes the other person happy. One will not be "TELLING" the other what to do. It doesn't work that way (in a healthy, mutually respectful relationship).
That being said – in the very rare event where there is a conflict in "desires" or views of what is the best way for the family to go, I'd not personally have a problem with the man being the "tie-breaker." However, that *only* works, when the rest of what I've described above is present.”
B)
If you are admitting that you don’t have a problem with the guy being the “tie-breaker”, then we are in agreement on this point. I believe that you are saying that a guy should be open to consideration of the gal’s views. If so, then we are in agreement.
A)
BROTHER RAPP-So if given a choice between love and security which would you hope she choose. Either one or the other please.
“Love. No contest.
I've watched marriages both ways.
With true, mutual love, security is found, regardless of economic circumstances. Without true, mutual love, all the money/"financial security" in the world isn't enough for a happy life or a healthy home (and thus healthy kids).”
B)
So if two people are in “mutual love” , money and ergo security will just spring up and come to them? And you really believe this?
A)
BROTHER RAPP-Doesn’t matter who makes the most if both are working. What matters is who controls the finances.
Yes – I've seen how big an issue CONTROL is for you via your prior posts. A partnership is just that – a partnership – wherein each person brings his/her gifts to the table. If she's better at controlling/managing finances, she should be the one doing it; if he's better at it, then he certainly should be the one doing it. One's chromosomes, however, do not automatically qualify one for that position.
B)
If you don’t take the training wheels off your little kids bike he’ll never ride on his own. People only do what they HAVE to do to get what they want. As long as you do his traditional role, why should he?
A)
BROTHER RAPP-All men want to be able to support their family.
“Ha. ::::choking::::: .. aHEM. Yessir, absolutely sir. That explains why a national registry was set up to force these men to pay their child support. ::::still coughting:::”
B)
Kids are often seen as a souvenir of a moment of love, lust, sex or whatever you want to call it. If the relationship that produced these little souvenirs sours, the treatment of them can and do catch the fall out from both the parties of the relationship. Child support as well as alimony is looked upon by many as “THE FYCKIN’ I GOT FOR THE FYCKIN’ I DID”. Most men do want to support their families as long as the gal stays within her traditional role and doesn’t nag the hell out of him. But what man will want to have sex with that gal after she’s been BYTCHIN’ in his ear all day long. He still wants some sex. So she ends up pushing him into the arms of another more caring woman. A woman that is supportive of him in whatever it is in which he’s trying to accomplish. Why should he be reduced to jyckin’ off in the bathroom behind her condescending attitude? After being forced out of his home by her and cleaned out in a messy divorce, the guy just can’t see daylight. She’s supposed to get the money to live in a life style that she was accustomed to. That comes out of his pocket. But what about the pyssy that he was accustomed to? Does that come out of her CYNT??? NNNNOOOOOO. Where’s the law now? Where’s the fairness of this? There are many men who feel that it was her fault so let her handle things her way. If she’s having problems, it’s her fault. Give me the kids. But there are a multitude of combinations of reason why some guys have a problem with paying child support as well as alimony. Perhaps another topic can be started on that subject. I would prefer to stay on the one at hand. How about you?
A)
BROTHER RAPP-“You ask any unmarried guy if he wants to be able to support his family when he gets married or if he wants a woman to have a job as a qualifier to his marring her and they will choose the former by a wide margin. “
B)
Poorly stated on my part.
A)
“Go look at the profiles on match.com, sir (or, for that matter, any other service where men and women list who they are and what they want in a relationship). There are almost NO men looking for a woman without a job – almost EVERY man has, as a "qualifier" in his profile, that the woman he dates have a job/career. And MANY profiles refer at some point to the woman having a career and/or being financially stable on her own.”
B)
I believe that if prostitution (a situation where he can pick and choose, then pays, she puts out, shuts the fyck up-accept to swallow, no kids, or alimony and he can kick her out in the morning) were legalized in the U.S. and statistics of GUYS entering into such situations were compared against the number of GUYS listen on those types of sites that you are referring to, there would be more of the former then the ladder.
Those GUYS who are looking for women with jobs want the sex and just don’t want to pay for it while they are dating.
A)
BROTHER RAPP-They [the Amish] don’t have ghettos do they? How many single mothers does it’s culture produce?
“Not unless you consider their standard of living to be ghetto living. And of course no single mothers – although it definitely happens, they get excommunicated immediately. Problem solved. (For the community. Not for the woman.)”
B)
As you said, ”Problem solved”. I would think that those that got excommunicated are being punished by the community and not just by the guy. Fault the law of the Amish if you will, but anybody can walk away. I would also hazard a guess as to there being a smaller percentage of single women with children in the Amish community in comparison to the percentage of single women with children to the overall population of the U.S.
No, but the desire to MILK the situation for everything it's worth, to the detriment of both genders, would be understated with a word such as avarice.
I'm fine with women have more rights. That's the problem, especially with feminist supporters such as yourself. Not only do you have a faulty understanding of the argument presented beforehand, but you respond right away with your "I'm a victim" attitude.
What is unparalleled avarice? When a woman, for no other purpose than the sake of her ego, will forego her family for a "career," that's avarice. When a woman will allow her children to grow up into morally bankrupt citizens for the sake of inflating her ego, yes, I would say that's unparalleld avarice. I would also called that stupidity and a host of other four letter words, but that's besides the point.
Well, at least you admit that at SOME point in time, men's abilities were needed. How funny that you only focus on the minority of men, who were bad examples and inflicted suffering and pain unto others. Did it ever occur to you that the only reason women are equal today is because of the efforts of man to advance? In a chaotic (aka, caveman) society, men's abilities are paramount. Women can only shine in a civilized society, once men have built the foundation. So refreshing to see how grateful you are for what the past generations have done for you.
Enjoy your divorce rates and miserable life. Or did you happen to miss the escalating depression rates? I can see very clearly through your personality that you are solely motivated by money, and once again, embodying unparalleled avarice seems like second nature to you.
Feminists have achieved what women have always wanted? What's that? Denying their biological right to have children? Putting their own selfish desires over those of their family? If you aspire to support the notion that your gender is one filled with hedonism and self-centeredness, I won't let you. Unlike you, I actually have faith in the human race, AND IN WOMEN, regardless of the lows they've stooped to. How about less economics and more humanity?