</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Nellie1:
[QB] Actually, sufdb did say,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">any company that discriminates against women goes out business remarkably fast....all the discriminators died long ago.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That sure sounds to me like he thinks there is no longer discrimination against women in the workplace.

]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Women are not targeted for discrimination anymore than are Jews, white males, Hispanics, Christians, blacks, Muslims, gays, etc etc, blah, blah, blah. Good grief. Even if a woman were discrimated against, I bet she is just as capable as anyone else of handling it, don't you? I have found that women can be bright bulbs when we want to be!

<small>[ March 01, 2004, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Nellie1:
[QB] Actually, sufdb did say,

[QUOTE]any company that discriminates against women goes out business remarkably fast....all the discriminators died long ago.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That sure sounds to me like he thinks there is no longer discrimination against women in the workplace.


sufdb...Ok, let's clarify. There will ALWAYS be individual examples of discrimination....that is the nature of our species....we all do it....nellie does it. What I was attempting to say is that our corporate "culture" of institutionalized discrimination against women is GONE....the reason being women are capable employees, and if a discriminatory business pays "less" for a discriminatory reason...their compeititor will pay that employmee more...leaveing the discriminatory employeer with the bottom of the labor barrel...they will be unable to compete, and will go out of business...and they have. There are no longer any businesses which have a policy of discrimination re gender.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The value of one's views are contingent upon the merit of such views, not the speed by which they came to fruition.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Views do not necessarily have an intrinsic value. However, I stand by my statement that I do not trust people whose viewpoints have shifted rapidly, because I do not believe that it is possible to have considered the shift carefully. Although I believe that your views on gender equity are an example, I was not specifically targeting you. The other examples I gave had nothing to do with you - as far as I know, you did not radically change your religious beliefs (although I can think of at least one other poster who did), nor, as far as I know, did you suddenly change your views on the importance of family (as did my husband). This is an issue that has always been of importance to me, for close to 40 years. Apparently your definition of rapid is merely different from mine, but the real issue is the extent to which views change - I see nothing odd with someone gradually deciding that, say, the Methodist church is not a good fit, and becoming a Presbyterian. Leaving the priesthood to become a Unitarian, on the other hand, would be a bit odd.

I disagree that you could possibly be a "real" feminist if you think that there is something wrong with a man following his wife for her career. However, I do not find it particularly hard to believe that you treated your husband like he was a few french fries short of a Happy Meal, based on the condescending way that you have treated those of us on this thread who have disagreed with you.

You have no right to tell me whom I "should" be angry at. The members of NOW have a right to their opinions. I probably agree with some of their platforms and disagree with others, but I do not happen to think it is a big enough deal to bother getting upset about.

It matters not whether women or minorities can "handle" the discrimination that exists in the workplace - it makes the discrimination no less wrong.

<small>[ March 02, 2004, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Nellie1 ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Nellie1:
[QB] </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The value of one's views are contingent upon the merit of such views, not the speed by which they came to fruition.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Views do not necessarily have an intrinsic value. However, I stand by my statement that I do not trust people whose viewpoints have shifted rapidly, because I do not believe that it is possible to have considered the shift carefully. Although I believe that your views on gender equity are an example, I was not specifically targeting you.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I don't trust people who can't use reason and logic in their arguments. And of course you were specifically targeting me. You said it to me. Can't back-peddle from that position now. In your mind, learning to treat men with love and respect is a "180 degree change" that should: "not be trusted."

As you said, treating men with respect and love is:

"you are hoping that by being submissive, you will somehow prevent him from straying again."

That is a very strange view of treating your spouse with love and respect, Nellie. How does that qualify as "submissive?" What is it if my H treats me with love and respect? Is he then being "submissive?" You are interpreting this to a bizarre extreme.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Apparently your definition of rapid is merely different from mine, but the real issue is the extent to which views change -</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, the definition of "rapid" is irrelevent because the value of an idea is contingent upon the CONTEXT of an idea, NOT the rapidity of which the idea came to fruition. Is a good idea BAD if it comes to fruition over night?
Of course not.

Besides, how long do you think it should take for a person to learn to treat their spouse with respect? 20 years? I have been here for 3, I have been divorced for 5.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You have no right to tell me whom I "should" be angry at. The members of NOW have a right to their opinions. I probably agree with some of their platforms and disagree with others, but I do not happen to think it is a big enough deal to bother getting upset about. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have a right to tell you anything I want to tell you. But you should be angry, because they do not support you - they hurt women. As a woman, I am ashamed of them. Why you support them is baffling to me. If you are not upset that they use women only for political gain, that says more about you than it does me. They sure wouldn't support you like you support them here. Unless you were a mass murderer like Andrea Yates, of course. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

<small>[ March 02, 2004, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

uggh here I go...

This has nothing to do with liking melody...

The original post here...is a personal testimony by ms. lane about her own personal treatment of some men in her life...

She speaks candidly of knowlingly disrespecting them....
That having one of her husbands move with her was not a respectful discourse or decision accomplished together by two partners...
nope melody states clearly that it was a power wielding trip and move on her part...and her husband damm well better like it or else...

Nellie responds to that personal testimony with...
There is nothing wrong with your husband moving to accommodate your career - thousands of wives have moved to accomodate their husband's career.

well that may true...except that Melody is TELLING us the WAY she did it was wrong....
SHE is the one deciding it WAS wrong...that's no one elses decision but hers...

It is not for us to come along and disagree with what she knows and feels to be truth...in her own life...

so how one would think they could disagree with melodys own admittance of her choice to poorly treat her husband...

I disagree that you could possibly be a "real" feminist if you think that there is something wrong with a man following his wife for her career.

what if he had no choice in following which is how I read melodys post....
follow me or I will leave you in the dust..
but know i make the money as well and you will get nothing...
follow me...and be happy about it or else...

that to me is the exact definition of some feminisists...and perhaps there is truth that melody could not meet that definition these days...
THANK GOD!!!!!

the feminsist movement meaning NOW is detrimental to all humans in MY opinion
Their self aimed genocidal stance that penetrates every aspect of their organization automatically alienates any woman who does not mindlessly follow them...

Their way or the highway stance on abortion is monumentally detrimental to the creation or pathway to any other solutions too "unwanted" babies.. (as if there really is a thing or just another spin off of their creation to feed their agenda......)


They resist all and any other routes that attempt to address this issue with any other solution...
alienating any woman who does not blindly follow them...

they have reeked havic in the work place making sexual harrassment suits with real backing and truth to them a mockery as they spend precious time and energy backing women who cry wolf and victim every time you turn around....

I probably agree with some of their platforms and disagree with others, but I do not happen to think it is a big enough deal to bother getting upset about.

You can't pick and choose Nellie...to be part of NOW..you gotta buy and eat the whole enchillada...that's part of what is so wrong with tthem...

and it is upsetting that an organization that could have and in the begining did do much good has become a mindless machine that affects legislation to the point of proudly toting statistics of the number of down-syndrome babies aborted in states so that the money saved on potentially caretaking for these folks is spun as a positive thing...

save money by elimating downs-syndrome through abortion from this planet...is what their placards may as read...for that is a positive accomplishment according to their agenda...
well i for one believe we are not better off for the loss of one individual regardless of mental capacity.....

their disregard about the importance of Fathers and or even male role models in a childs life...

they sicken my stomache...

they do upset me...

Lets go back to Gloria Steinem quote...
women need men like a fish needs a bicycle...

ARK

ML-

I too wanted to thank you for your original post and let you know that it caused me to think about things from a perspective that I hadn't considered before, so thanks for that. As for the rest of this thread, well don't let it get you down. It amazes me how people pick and choose the principles set forth for recovery by Harvey and MB, without buying into the whole package. Most often, it's those that are afraid to acknowledge their own contributions to a problem that choose to cast stones at others. Good luck and god bless!

Melody submissive!

Now there is a concept. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

If you go back to her orgininal post she said </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I let him make the major decisions or we make them together. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Notice the operative word: LET? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

It was still a very nice post Melody. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

God Bless,

JL

JustLearning,

You have a point:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I let him make the major decisions or we make them together. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Perhaps a tiger can not really change her stripes, no matter how much she may want us to think so.

MelodyLane,

No matter how many times you repeat the statement that I do not use logic in my posts, it will not make it true. Neither will repeating or paraphrasing the same statements over and over.

You don't think telling me at whom I should be angry is a bit of a disrespectful judgement? Do you tell your husband that he should be angry at particular people or organizations as well?

People's core beliefs are formed by the time they are in their mid-twenties or so, and if one's self-concept is secure, it is not likely that these beliefs would change radically. If that were commonly the case, marriage would be even more risky than it is - if two liberal protestants got married, it would certainly be a problem if 10 years down the road one of them decided that their children should be raised Catholic.

I doubt that your 2nd husband was forced to move with you under pain of death. Lots of people are put in the position of having to move with their spouses, usually in order to avoid suffering financial repercussions. There is nothing wrong with having one spouse financially dependent on the other, though it may be risky for the financially dependent spouse.

I found it interesting that you apparently believe that your mother is somehow responsible for your beliefs regarding men during the first twenty or more years of your adult life. I do not hold my mother responsible for my beliefs. There are certain beliefs that I hold that I wouldn't mind at all if I could "teach" my children - for instance, I don't believe in divorce except in very limited circumstances - yet my adult children believe very strongly in the concept of one strike and you're out when it comes to adultery. Any reasonably intelligent adult is fully capable of evaluating their parents' "teachings," and rejecting whatever parts they think are wrong.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Nellie1:
[QB] JustLearning,

You have a point:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I let him make the major decisions or we make them together. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Perhaps a tiger can not really change her stripes, no matter how much she may want us to think so. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And perhaps you should give it a try, Nellie? Really, its not so bad treating men with respect and love. Change and growth is good. The opposite is unhealthy.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

MelodyLane,

No matter how many times you repeat the statement that I do not use logic in my posts, it will not make it true. Neither will repeating or paraphrasing the same statements over and over. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In other words, you still can't logically support your assertion that my views shouldn't be "trusted" because they were developed "rapidly" in your opinion. It is an ad hominem argument that you have failed to substantiate. Duly noted.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">People's core beliefs are formed by the time they are in their mid-twenties or so, and if one's self-concept is secure, it is not likely that these beliefs would change radically.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Treating men with respect is not really that "radical." Maybe to you it is since you are a supporter of NOW. I think you are probably describing yourself here and don't realize that healthy, well balanced people change and grow throughout their lives.

Most 40 year olds are completely different people than they were when they were 25. Of course, some are still stuck at age 25 in the "heady days" of the 60's!

In order to believe your theory, no one ever grows from experience and develops wisdom as they age. That is just not how it works with healthy people, Nellie. What you have described is a profoundly sick, immature worldview that is probably stuck in time. If you have not matured since your 20's, there is something very wrong. How sad that you believe this.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I doubt that your 2nd husband was forced to move with you under pain of death. Lots of people are put in the position of having to move with their spouses, usually in order to avoid suffering financial repercussions.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My company is moving my H and I to another city in May so I have no idea where you got this notion that I am against moving with my company. I have never said any such thing. That was your wrong assumption in your frothing zeal to undermine anyone who would DARE suggest that men be treated with respect. Bad form, Nellie. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Any reasonably intelligent adult is fully capable of evaluating their parents' "teachings," and rejecting whatever parts they think are wrong. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As I did. As I also rejected the intellectually vacuous and morally bankrupt ideals of the NOW.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Just Learning:
[QB] Melody submissive!

Now there is a concept. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">hehee, I got a kick out of that, too! Thanks, JL. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Ark, thanks for the excellent post, you are exactly right, I have nothing against moving with my company and that was never the issue. Of course, I never SAID that was the issue in the first place. My company is moving us in May and my DH was able to get a promotion that allows him to office anywhere because he is on the road 50% of the time. It worked out great for both of us!

And you are right about what a useless and destructive organization the NOW has become. They make me ashamed to be a woman. Instead of defending victims, they now defend mass murderers like Andrea Yates and the murderous, suicide cult, Falun Gong. The NOW, instead of helping women, give lie to the idea that we are, in fact, thinking, accountable, moral, productive members of society. This is why NOW has been in a virtual membership FREE FALL for the past 10 years. They are has-been harpies.

Thanks for your nice words, litchfield. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

<small>[ March 02, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

Ah, I sense a perfect opening for one of my favorite quotes from Old Winston Churchill.

If you are not a liberal when you are young, you don't have a heart.

If you are not a conservative when you get older, you don't have a brain.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Gotta agree with Melody on this one: people do change and often they change alot as they analyze their life and what has worked and what has NOT worked.

I must say I even raise my youngest differently from the oldest because I HAVE LEARNED.

I am older than either of you, and I am JUST LEARNING. I am very serious about this and I think Melody is right you do learn and change especially if something is NOT working in your life.

So, I will leave now that you two have given me this great opportunity to use my quote. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

God Bless,

JL

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
<strong> ...... I realize now that all my husbands wanted was love and respect. .....</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Wow Mel, when I checked this thread a few days ago, only a couple of guys posted. Now you have 7 pages!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

I haven't read all the posts but see a lot of heat generated from your thread. It is a good topic and really helps us see several things:

1. influences from our youth do affect our outlook and decisions. ('bad association spoils useful habits').

2. we reap what we sow.

3. change can be good.

From what I did read, I think it can be summed up quite simply as: 'hate what is bad, love what is good'.

Why? It really doesn't matter what the gender, status in life or anything else. When someone or something is bad, stay away. When someone or something is good, love and respect them.

When someone or something is bad but they are in authority, respect but when they demand you cross the line that violates your R with a higher authority, then it is not a requirement to give in to their demands.

If someone loves us, they would not truly ask us to do what is wrong. If they do, it is not deliberate and should be open to correction. If they don't want the correction, you may have to rethink if they truly love you as they should.

No one here on earth knows all. We continue to learn and the more we learn the less we realize we know. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Now I can see why my wise grandmother was never in a hurry to live her life. She was a smart woman. Not highly educated but in the lesson in life, she was at the top of her class. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

L.

MelodyLane,


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">put us in a position where he would have to go where MY company transferred us.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I was not supposed to infer from this that you now think this was a bad thing?

I will stand by my beliefs that one's core beliefs should be formed by their mid-twenties or so. There is nothing wrong with gradual or minor changes - I too have become slightly more conservative as I aged. However, one should have matured enough by the mid-twenties that any beliefs founded in immaturity should have been modified by then. No, I would not trust someone who believed in anarchy at the age of 30 and at 50 was a staunch George Bush supporter. However, I wouldn't have a problem with someone who supported McCloskey (who no one seems to remember but me) for the Republican nomination against Nixon and Gore last time - or someone who supported Nixon and Bush. How on earth could you live with someone if you never knew if everything they believed was likely to go up in smoke. I am not talking about the wrongness or rightness of beliefs, because often this is not applicable. It is not "wrong" to be a conservative or to be a liberal, to be Catholic or Amish or Unitarian - but it could be a problem for your family if you devoted your life to a cause rooted in one of these beliefs, and then decided to adopt a diametrically opposed belief at middle age. The time for exploring core beliefs is in adolescence and early adulthood. I firmly believe that if you haven't pretty much finished this exploration process by the mid-twenties, you are not ready to marry, and put your spouse at risk of finding out that he or she was, 10 or 20 years later, married, not to a person whose views have merely mellowed or developed, but to a completely different person.

Throughout these posts, you have repeatedly said that I believe it is wrong to respect and love your husband, when I have said no such thing. You have claimed that I am not using "logic" in my posts, ignoring my arguments. You may disagree with my premises, for instance that one's core beliefs should be formed at a given age, but you have merely ignored the arguments I have stated outlining the potential consequences if that is not the case. You have stated that I am a supporter of NOW, when I specifically stated that I support some of their platforms, but not all. You have told me that I "can't" do that, when if fact I can, just as I can support some of the democratic platforms but not all, just as I could support Nixon's environmental policies but not his defense policies. You have been rude and condescending to anyone who disagreed with you. It is pointless to attempt to debate with someone who thinks debate means simply making the same statements over and over again, whether or not these statements have any basis in fact.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">put us in a position where he would have to go where MY company transferred us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I was not supposed to infer from this that you now think this was a bad thing?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Infer" is giving yourself generous license. A better word would be ASSUME. It was never stated - or INFERRED - that I had anything against moving. I guess someone here is too proud to apologize when proved wrong.

You didn't answer a single point that I made in my post and still can't support a single one of your assertions with logic or reason. Do you even read my posts? Do you even understand what this thread is about? Several folks have pointed this out to you and you still don't get it. You are objecting to my initial post, it is about treating men with respect.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">However, one should have matured enough by the mid-twenties that any beliefs founded in immaturity should have been modified by then.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I find it amazing to meet someone who actually admits to have not matured beyond the mid-20's. That is shocking and sad to me. That is fine, Nellie, but you must remember that you are speaking for yourself here. This is not a healthy trait. Healthy people evolve and grow over the years as they gain wisdom and experience.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Do you even read my posts?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I ask you the same question.

It is impossible to have a debate with you since you clearly have no interest in making an effort to read, much less understand, my posts. In your posts to me, you have displayed a level of obtuseness, condescension, and disrepect almost unprecedented on this board. I will in the future avoid responding to your posts, and I would ask that you refrain from responding to mine.

Well, I sure hate to see you leave in a huff, Nellie! Take care.

Jazzeygirl, that guy in the picture is an evangelist named Jack Van Impe. It stems from a joke about me not wanting to take rides on my DH's motorcycle for fear I would get helmet hair. He has the best helmet hair that I could think of! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />


[my apologies to Mr Van Impe for borrowing his pic off the internet! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> ]

76 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot