I was out in my garden this morning water and weeding. I turned my throughts towards this issue.

Men and women have been walking away from their families forever. Back before there were liberals or Murphy Browns or bras, people, more generally men, abandoned their families. Men and women will be walking away from their families when we have colonies on Pluto. For eons, men have been told they were responsible but Dads walked away, frittered away, drank away. They also treated women like property, imprisoned them in a home or in a pregnant body. It was the norm for a man to take a wife's property and dowry, dole out money as the man thought regardless of requirements, to expect a lot and make marriages for daughters no matter who they loved. It was acceptable to beat your wife and abuse your children. Is this what God told them to do? There's been plenty of "no good, worthless men", as my grandma would put it. Her aunt was married to one of them in the 1890s. We just have more choices today. Statistics are kept now. We have news broadcast. It's live and in living color at 5.

Maybe we need to accept the fact that men leaving is a situation that happens. That's why I like the philosophy that it takes a village to raise a child. I am not good at everything. I can't do everything. But what I am good at, I can do that for a lot of kids. I do a Girl Scout troop but I don't coach soccer.

I was talking this morning to my auntie who lives in a really bad, inter-city neighborhood. While her daughters desperately would like her to move, she stays because she says someone good needs to be there. Someone has to be an example. She fears because she sees so many barely-a-single parent families, kids who are not exposed to values, parents who do not know how to parent. These are kids who could use strong adult models. I have been to her neighborhood. My Girl Scout troop collected books for her local elementary school. I hope it helped those kids. Certainly helped more than ranting on about Murphy Brown.

My view of the man/woman thing is not what the Bible, written by men BTW, viewpoint that you espouse. I was raised in a church, have read the Bible and can't buy into that particular philosophy. Marriage is a partnership. Should women depend upon the benevolence of men? Like they say, God helps those who help themselves. Every gets their own humble opinion. Strangely enough, I feel God is with me too.

Wish I could work in the yard today...but ended up burning myself yesterday at my boy's baseball game. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

True. But not the point of the article, nor what I was saying. Iam saying society now CONDONES this, and in many cases, ecourages it. There will always be murder. That does not mean we condone it. That does not mean we dont punish it. Men (or women) that wlk away from their responsibilities, from their vow, from the marital contract...should be held responsible.

I understnad the home. And I dont disagree that we have done some horrible things. Dont quite understand this "pregnant body" issue, unless this is connected to a woman's right to "choose."

It wasnt the woman's dowry. It was her father's, who put it together as part of the marital contract. Back then, men and women didnt choose each other...their parents did. The dowry was payment to the husband's father. The dowry did not belong to the bride, nor the groom.

Nope.

There was shame and guilt in 1890. there was a society that did not condone such behavior. Did that stop no-goo, worthless men? Of course not. But the marginal men were encouraged to take the easy way out today because there is no penalty, no guilt, no shame, no financial or legal penalties.

Accept? I accept that murder, adultery...all of that including men leaving will happen. Sin is in the world and we arent going to stop that in its entirety. But does that mean I think we should just say "well, men will be men. As long as he mails his check, no problem." I do not accept sin. Even my own. Neither does God.

I am a little league coach, so I know what you are talking about. But I do not think that the majority of the things a child needs can be found in the village. It takes a family to raise a child. That is why home schooled children kick the pants off public school kids. That is why the article I originally posted talked bout the statistics of those criminals, etc in regards to intact families. The Bible says God hates divorce. There isnt much in the Bible that God uses the word "hate" for. Pretty strong words. But He hates it because of what it does to the children. And the fact that sins against the kids go on for 4 generations. Four generations!!! The selfishness of these two adults is passed on to many.

Your aunt should be commended. I mean that! On Murphy Brown...that issue spoke to an issue where a woman would be so selfish as to have a child without a father, thinking she can do it all. She cannot.

You are free to disagree with the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If it is, then you will have some real problems with your conclusions. If it isnt, then no problems there.

Why?

Do not disagree. But there is a heirarchy. We can say there isnt all we want. And it will be to our detriment. To men and to women.

No...they should depend on the grace of God.

Who is "they?" God doesnt say that. The Bible does not say that. The Bible and God say the exact opposite. God helps the helpless.

And you are free to feel as you like. but, as we have discussed on many threads here...if the Christian God is relly God, then you have to take His word in its entirety...not pick and choose. And if He is who He said He was, then to ignore His "owners manual" for our lives will only lead to probelms.

I understand the problems you have with this grape. I really do. But I believe in God, and Jesus died for our sins. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. As such, I believe that menand women are different, created for two different roles. Does that mean they arent equal? Absolutely not! Does that mean they have different roles, that only a man can fill or only a woman can fill. Absolutely.

God established a heirarchy for a reason. It doesnt mean that the marriage isnt a partnership. It doesnt mean the husband is a tyrant or the wife is some "slave." But it does mean that one person in that relationship is held responsible for what happens or does nto happen in that family. God says it is the man. And to igonore that, is to ignore God.

And anytime we ignore God...it never turns out well.

In His arms.

MM,

I agree with most of what you say but I find it dangerous to start putting the blame on 'liberals' for even if tomorrow liberals were to disappear from the face of the Earth, there would still be plenty of conservatives that would be more than willing to carry the mess that no fault divorce has wrought.

Conservatives have shown that they have the same propensity as liberals in trying to put the blame on others instead of on the ones that look back at them in the mirror. Let's not glamorize a past that for most part never was that morally great to begin with.

TMCM

MM,

I would love to think that this article would have some bearing on my WH but I am sure it wouldn't,least of all at this stage.Like other's here,my girls and myself were plunged into being on our own due to my WH's selfishness.I always wanted a strong male figure(their DAD) to be here helping to raise the children(and to be a loving husband) but apparently,that is no longer important.

TT,

My WH also told me one day to "Get a job" when we had argued about the idea of me "living off" my WH. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />I was a SAHM too to which we BOTH agreed would be in the best interest of our children.Not only was he just thinking about money but it was an insult to me and women all over.Raising decent,caring,healthy children in todays society is,to me,the most important job anyone can do.

O

Raising decent,caring,healthy children in todays society is,to me,the most important job anyone can do.

Absolutely agreed.

And if I may say a few contoversial words : its also one of the most repetitive, boring, unstimulating and stifling careers on earth for anyone who is not fully satisfied by the role IME.

Squid's a smart girl. Not AMBITIOUS from a career sense but smart and likes to socialize and work. She DOES place way too much priority on others' opinions of her, and she does not value the 'image' that herself as a SAHM has.

OM's hit on approach was "I can see you're worth so much more than just being a drudge".

While he sponged off his LTGF's money earned as a cancer nurse AND left her to run the home and raise their son.

Squid convinced herself that she hated her life as a SAHM. She did eveything she could to spend as much time as possible away from us and eventually had an affair with the leading light of her primary 'feel good' occupation - her sport.

We were talking yesterday after the fathers day dinner she arranged for me & the kids at Frankie & Benny's and she said it was a privilege to be wife to me and mother to our wonderful kids. She said she KNOWS she can be in paid employment anytime but she can only raise our kids though each phase of their lives just once.

Its a radical turnaround. She also has said recently that "things go better; FEEL better when (I) am in charge. It makes me feel safe and loved, and I can just ASSUME a caring, strong person is looking after our infrastructure. Its like 'ownership and release' : When I properly own MY responsibilities I am areleased from not worrying over the stuff YOU own. Its a confoidence thing. "

OK now these words summoned many respones in me : It was great to see the extent of Squids mental and emotional recovery from her nadir a few months ago when she was stealing our kids coillege money to spend time with OM. And it was great to hear her verbalise her confidence in my husbandry BUT I realised its quite a burden to be leaned on as leader of the family.

I'm thankful I have God's template and the help of my Godly friend RIF to help me dispatch those duties with joy not stress.