TS,<p>I didn't mean that you made the sacrifice, I was thinking that your H felt he was and therefore resentment built up in him. The point being that Harley points out and I believe he is right, that self-sacrifice often builds resentment and it does in marriages.<p>The issue isn't who actually made the sacrifice but who "felt" that they had done so and not be rewarded for it.<p>I am somewhat aware of how the world affects marriages. [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] I have been married 26 years.<p>My main issue with you isn't women being self sufficient, but the women are victimized by men point of view. It is not how I think things work.<p>The basic point is the both must derive something more positive than negative out of the marriage or it is very likely to fail. It is not a male plot, it isn't that women are ahead or behind men.<p>There is no reason to marry if it offers no advantages.<p>God Bless,<p>JL

JL,<p>"There is no reason to marry if it offers no advantages."<p>Exactly...and I don't see that marriage offers many advantages to women like me or alot of women who want both a career and a family. When I say that, people (AGAIN) assume that it is because I "hate" men or something. If that were true, I doubt I would have many male friends. The fact is, I will not fill the role that MANY men want a woman to fill...at least not at this stage of their lives. I think some of the guys here are very, very disingenuous. Good guy admitted that he would not stay home and take care of his kids while his wife worked. So, if his wife wants a family, what other "choice" is she supposed to make. I know all about the so-called "choices" that alot of men offer. They really aren't choices at all. They aren't willing to make the sacrifices that they (either consciously or unconsciously) expect their wives to make. It is just alot of talk, if you ask me. <p>Had I been born a man, I probably would not be in this position. I would be in your position, JL. Maybe not any better at picking a good spouse, but I bet I'd have a much bigger pool of applicants to choose from. Of that I have NO doubt. That is one thing noone here will admit to. We can talk all day about what some men do and what some women do. I could care less about what happens on the fringe of the bellcurve. Oh sure, I bet that if I try hard enough and look long enough I could win the relationship lottery--find the proverbial needle in the haystack. Still, I'd much prefer looking for hay in a haystack and not the needle.<p>Goodguy,<p>Nope. I don't think I've made women out to be victims even in the statement you quoted. I'm illustrating what I believe is a cultural standard. Women are expected to be entirely devoted to their husband and children ONLY. That the primary source of her identity should be based on someone else's accomplishments...And everything she does necessarily must revolve around that. Men's personalities and lives are not expected to be that one-dimensional. In the past (and still today) women were not encouraged to have their own needs and to have a life and/or accomplishments outside of their family--unlike men. That kind of thinking DOES lead to what I would consider victimization of women. But women aren't victims. They can choose not to buy into what our culture so often expects of them. Unfortunately, they pay a price for wanting an identity outside of simply mother/wife, and that is hearing the kind of crap that I hear--that they hate men, hate children, blah-blah.<p>[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: TheStudent ]</p>

TS,<p>"Had I been born a man, I probably would not be in this position. I would be in your position, JL. Maybe not any better at picking a good spouse, but I bet I'd have a much bigger pool of applicants to choose from. Of that I have NO doubt. That is one thing noone here will admit to. We can talk all day about what some men do and what some women do. I could care less about what happens on the fringe of the bellcurve. Oh sure, I bet that if I try hard enough and look long enough I could win the relationship lottery--find the proverbial needle in the haystack. Still, I'd much prefer looking for hay in a haystack and not the needle."<p>Had you been born a man, with the same attitude you project here, you would have the same problem. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we ALL play the "relationship lottery". Every single one of us - male and female. The difference, it seems, between looking for hay or a needle is perspective. Human beings are imperfect. We screw up - ALL OF US. If you go through life looking for perfection in your current or potential mate, you are going to be sadly disappointed. (Kinda sounds like you are already!) <p>Your posts, while articulate and thoughtful, have been missing one crucial thing - acceptance of shared responsibility. It is easy to blame the other party when things fall apart. The hardest thing to do is to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror and accept responsiblity for your part in what happened to your marriage.<p>"My part?" you ask? Yes, your part. Because unless you are perfect, (and since I haven't heard the Trump and the Shout I'm assuming you're not) you had a part to play in this as well. Growth does not come from assigning blame. Growth comes from accepting responsibility and learning from past mistakes.<p>You also seem to have a very skewed view of "choice". <p>Choice (n)
1) The act of choosing; selection.
2) The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
3) One that is chosen.
4) A number or variety from which to choose
5) The best or most preferable part.
6) Care in choosing.
7) An alternative. <p>Choice does NOT mean one can "have it all". Choice means the freedom to select which option suits you the best. Everyone has freedom of choice. With that freedom comes the responsibility to live with what you have chosen. By definition, any blame for choices made falls on the one who made them. Society is NOT to blame. Men are NOT to blame. Women are NOT to blame. Everyone is responsible for choosing wisely. If you don't, you have only yourself to blame.<p>Has

Hasatude,<p>I agree with most that you have written, yet, I have a question regarding the below quote:<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Written by HAS:
Choice does NOT mean one can "have it all". Choice means the freedom to select which option suits you the best. Everyone has freedom of choice. With that freedom comes the responsibility to live with what you have chosen. By definition, any blame for choices made falls on the one who made them. Society is NOT to blame. Men are NOT to blame. Women are NOT to blame. Everyone is responsible for choosing wisely. If you don't, you have only yourself to blame.<hr></blockquote><p>What if in making your "choice" you were blantantly lied to and manipulated.<p>Now I'm not asking this to condone or advocate blame, I have always believed in taking responsibility for my choices and living with whatever those choices bring. And I know blaming someone else gets you nowhere, it's self defeating, but I do struggle with the idea that I would have not made that BAD choice if I hadn't been coerced into it.<p>I guess I'm saying that one doesn't need to necessarily blame another, but placing ownership on someone else for their mis-deeds which led to your decision/choice is, IMHO, appropriate. As long as you move forward (forgive) and learn from the experience, there will be growth. <p>Shoot, I offered more of a statement than a question I guess. Hopefully you got the jist of my thoughts.<p>Lv,
Jo<p>[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Resilient ]</p>

hasatude,<p>the only mistake I made was choosing to get married in the first place. <p>I know of many other marriages that have survived through MUCH, MUCH greater challenges than mine faced. I have plenty of examples in my own family. There is almost no divorce in my family--and that includes parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. I can tell you that is not because both of them were perfect or even faithful during their entire marriage. <p>Marriage does not exist in a vacuum. There is a reason why our country has a greater than 50% divorce rate--and it ain't because this or that individual made mistakes. Everyone in our culture is to blame for the sad state of marriage these days. Men, women, everyone. Everytime that friend or co-worker looks the other way when someone is cheating. Everytime the boss encourages his/her employees to neglect his/her family with ungodly overtime. Everytime someone buys a house in the 'burbs and commutes 3 hrs/day cause they just gotta have that 2500 sq. ft. home with a pool and tennis courts. There are many, many factors that make marriage difficult these days and it has become harder and harder to sift out which are the biggest culprits. One thing I know for sure, people in India with their 1% divorce rate aren't "better" people than we are and aren't perfect either. But for some reason, their culture is set up in such a way that supports marriage. Ours is not. <p>Everyone makes mistakes in a marriage. Always have--always will. The difference is that, these days, people seem to think that there is a better deal out there. I don't believe any amount of soul-searching and "taking responsibility" for my part in things amounts to a hill of beans anymore--not when the accepted solution to everyone's problems seems to be going out and finding someone new. If that's the way things are, then that's the way things are. All one can do is adapt--so adapt I have.<p>"If you don't, you have only yourself to blame."
No sh*t. Read my previous post. <p>You won't find me getting married again. IMO, it is a lose-lose situation for almost half or more of those who enter it. More for those who attempt it more than once.<p>Resilient,<p>"What if in making your "choice" you were blantantly lied to and manipulated."<p>Good question. I've found that even the best intentioned people don't understand their own motivations, so how can they possibly communicate that to someone else? I've never had that problem. I've always been very clear about what I want and was quite sure my message was received loud and clear. However, I do seem to have a hard time figuring out when someone is lying to me. No matter. I simply don't invest anything worth losing anymore so I don't concern myself with good/bad intentions or think too hard about whether someone else is lying or not. As long as I'm not sacrificing anything too important, then it doesn't matter much. Given the high divorce rate, I don't see much incentive to change that approach either.<p>[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: TheStudent ]</p>

hasatude,<p>one more thing...the only "attitude" I project is for people to follow through on their promises without a bunch of whining and don't ask their partner to do for them what they are unwilling to do for the other partner. It's not that complicated.<p>about the choice thing...There are no "choices" when there are no opportunities. Of course, noone everyone has an infinite variety of opportunities in life. I have only said that men have many more OPPORTUNITIES to have BOTH a family and a career than women do. Since women's opportunities to have BOTH are limited, then naturally their choices are limited. I did not choose to be born female, yet I'm expected to accept the limited opportunities/choices available to me without griping. Screw that. The only CHOICE I do have is to maybe make things better for the women who follow me. If a woman doesn't want opportunities for having both a family and career, then it makes sense that her choices are much simpler and a lack of opportunity is hardly a problem for her. Like JL's wife or career women who don't want children.<p>In this respect at least, I do believe men have it all and that it is not too much to ask for women to "have it all". It does require that men do some compromising, and as long as women do not enforce their wishes then things will stay the way they are. I'm doing my part--that's for sure.<p>[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: TheStudent ]</p>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Resilient:
<strong>
What if in making your "choice" you were blantantly lied to and manipulated.<p>Now I'm not asking this to condone or advocate blame, I have always believed in taking responsibility for my choices and living with whatever those choices bring. And I know blaming someone else gets you nowhere, it's self defeating, but I do struggle with the idea that I would have not made that BAD choice if I hadn't been coherced into it.<p>I guess I'm saying that one doesn't need to necessarily blame another, but placing ownership on someone else for their mis-deeds which led to your decision/choice is, IMHO, appropriate. As long as you move forward (forgive) and learn from the experience, there will be growth. ]</strong><hr></blockquote><p>Jo,<p>I agree with you. Been there, done that. [img]images/icons/tongue.gif" border="0[/img] <p>
TS,<p>Believe it or not, I do agree with much of what you have to say. Not all, but things would be kinda boring if we all agreed all the time, eh? [img]images/icons/tongue.gif" border="0[/img] <p>For the longest time I felt the same way you did about marriage as an institution. There was no way in the world that I would let myself be "institutionalized". I am glad however, that I finally outgrew that. In spite of all of the problems my wife and I have had (and are still having), I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. My marriage, and my children, are the only real thing I have accomplished in this life. My degree, job, house, cars, money - all mean nothing in the end. The only thing that we leave behind in this world are our memories and our love. Everything else is transitory. <p>Male or female, unless you do something simply amazing in your professional field you will be forgotten soon after you walk out the door. No one will regret your leaving or remember you after you're gone. The only thing we leave in here that has any real worth is the way we have touched other lives. Anyone who cuts themselves off from that is losing touch with one of the most fundamental and wonderful parts of being human.<p>Has

Has,<p>"Male or female, unless you do something simply amazing in your professional field you will be forgotten soon after you walk out the door. No one will regret your leaving or remember you after you're gone. The only thing we leave in here that has any real worth is the way we have touched other lives. Anyone who cuts themselves off from that is losing touch with one of the most fundamental and wonderful parts of being human."<p>No argument there. But you have no idea what I've done to save my marriage(s). JL can attest to the fact that perfection was never anything I've sought. In fact, my ability to accept less than so-called perfection has been my downfall. <p>In the final analysis, I believe both marriages were a massive waste of my time. The only reason you don't believe that is because you are still married--or maybe you don't have a problem being divorced or risking being divorced multiple times. That's ok. There are plenty of people who don't have a problem being divorced. I do. <p>I've never been a high-stakes gambler. What I won't do is get married over and over hoping to get lucky. No amount of changing my personality will improve those odds. Being divorced again is simply not something I will accept, and since I can't control another person, there is no point in going there. <p>People assume that because I won't invest in an "intimate" relationship that I don't have friends or family that I do invest in. When one invests in your friends and family (siblings, children, neices, nephews, parents, etc.) the stakes just aren't as high folks. You're not going to get an STD from them, and the negotiation required to keep those relationships are not nearly as complicated.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by TheStudent:
<strong>If a woman doesn't want opportunities for having both a family and career, then it makes sense that her choices are much simpler and a lack of opportunity is hardly a problem for her. Like JL's wife or career women who don't want children.<p>In this respect at least, I do believe men have it all and that it is not too much to ask for women to "have it all". It does require that men do some compromising, and as long as women do not enforce their wishes then things will stay the way they are. I'm doing my part--that's for sure.<p>[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: TheStudent ]</strong><hr></blockquote><p>TS,<p>I did not choose to be born male any more than you chose to be female. That is the hand we were dealt, and we both have to live with it.<p>The fact of the matter is, men have ALWAYS had to choose between work and family. You're an engineer, right? A classically male dominated field, is it not? How many men at work have you observed taking FMLA time to stay home with a newborn child? (I did) How many do you think wish that they could have, but were afraid to ask? And why were they afraid to ask? <p>Hmmmmmm?<p>Could it be that the "classic" role of "breadwinner" has them just as trapped as you perceive their wives to be? Certianly not! After all, we males have all the options in the world, don't we? <p>Whether or not you choose to see it, men are just as trapped as women are. As my father told me when I was 12, "You only have two things in life that are certian - work and death. You're gonna have to do both." Men don't have the freedom (as a rule) to choose to stay at home and raise the kids. Some of us would love to do just exactly that. And contrary to popular opinion, some of us can do that just as well, if not better, than women can. Unfortunately, society frowns on men who do not go out and be the "provider" for their family. Men are frowned upon in the workplace if they take sick leave when their kids are ill. Believe me, I know. Been there, done that. I have had to fight almost daily for the right to be a caregiver to my children. So you'll excuse me if I take your opinion on my "having it all" with a very large grain of salt. I think your view of the world is more than a little myopic. Try looking at BOTH sides of the equation sometime. Maybe you'll see that we're all trying to swim against the same current.

Resilient,<p>Rule #26 in the list of eternal truths:<p>all decisions have to be made in the absence of total information, or with imperfect.<p>to absolve your responsibility just because you have imperfect information is not acceptable.<p>wiffty

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by TheStudent:
<strong>Good guy admitted that he would not stay home and take care of his kids while his wife worked. So, if his wife wants a family, what other "choice" is she supposed to make.</strong><hr></blockquote><p>No, you misunderstood. The issue of my wife staying home with them never even came up; like I said, the only question was whether I would do it... I seriously considered it, but decided that we couldn't afford our expenses if I left my job for a few years. The choice we made was to get a nanny... <p>
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr><strong>
Nope. I don't think I've made women out to be victims even in the statement you quoted.</strong><hr></blockquote><p>TS, I believe your posts have consistently had the theme that women in this society are victimized by men. I used your own words to show that. I think that you are now trying to play word games (saying that women are "victimized" but aren't "victims"), and frankly, I look at that as a last resort tactic, and I see no point in trying to pin you into a corner. Your attitude towards men is fairly clear, so perhaps we are better off to just leave it at that. All I was hoping to do is show you that women and men are quite equally capable of being good spouses as well as [censored]. You seem to prefer to think that it's mostly the men that do that; that is your choice.<p>Good luck.<p>AGG

TS,<p>One of my favorite lines from the movies is from "Paint Your Wagons", the gambler, drunk,... (Lee Marvin) introduces the naive young farmer from Iowa (Clint Eastwood) to the owner of the local saloon, gambling estabilishment, and house of ill-repute. When introduced, Eastwood says: "nice to meet you but I don't gamble." Marvin jumps in" don't worry neither does he." [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>It has been my observations that real good gamblers don't gamble. They know themselves, the odds, and the cards they are holding.<p>I think that you need to realize most of the people here knowing what they know and what they have learned would probably NOT be gambling much if they remarried. They have so much more knowledge.<p>TS, over the years we have talked extensively about many subjects. I remember when you first came here and how hard you worked to restore you marriage. I know that you have done a lot of reading and thinking about what you did, what your H's have done, etc.<p>My point is not that you have to get married or that it is the only way you can be happy. My point is that with the education you have had here and in your life, you should NOT be much of a gambler.<p>I do tend to see you under the spell of the green eyed monster called "jealousy" when it comes to men. If we had it so good, we wouldn't be having affairs, divorcing, etc. <p>This thread has evolved over a variety of topics. One of them is your view of men and our CHOICES. I have said it and others have said it, men don't get many more choices than women, in fact fewer. Our roles have been pretty set for many centuries. Now perhaps they are changing. I suspect the rate these changes are made will be determined by how well women handle the type of power men have. And at the same time realize the power they do have.<p>Frankly, women have a lot to learn about the use of power and authority, but I am sure with time they will do well. But, the key is always to know and respect the power you do have. The women as "victim", rankles me because it suggests that women are not very bright, for they have failed to see their own power and use it effectively.<p>Women have tremendous power over men, and if they do as you suggest and become equals with men, they will have to give up quite a bit of it up or there will not be the sort of society you envision.<p>I realize you probably don't know what I am talking about because "you weren't born a man". But, when you become just like me, I hope that you do. [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>TS: Nellie said she comes to this board with a mission. You responded that you did as well. I am beginning to think that MY mission on this board is to ANNOY you and keep you honest. [img]images/icons/grin.gif" border="0[/img] <p>God Bless,<p>JL

"Men are frowned upon in the workplace if they take sick leave when their kids are ill."<p>So are women. That is why they are not hired or promoted as often as men--even when they have the same qualifications. Trust me. I've heard the "locker room" conversations--from a handful of traitorous men over the years. Employers would never hire a breeding age woman if they could get away with it, but they are often "forced" to in a tight labor market. <p>I have mentioned MANY times that the corporate structure harms both men and women and is not set up for family life at all. I push for more flexibility for both genders. <p>After I graduate, for the first time in my life I'll be in the enviable position of having my personal life situation actually be an ASSET. <p>"Could it be that the "classic" role of "breadwinner" has them just as trapped as you perceive their wives to be?"<p>Of course. I believe that any time someone is expected to take the all or nothing approach that it is likely that they are suffering. Still, you can still have a job and have children, even if you don't spend all day with them. And you can expect that someone you have some reasonable amount of confidence in will be raising them (your wife). I don't have that luxury. If I want kids, they either go to daycare or I give up my job. <p>"And contrary to popular opinion, some of us can do that just as well, if not better, than women can."<p>I've never, ever doubted that one bit. However, there are still lots of people who believe that gender defines you in absolutely every way--including one's ability to effectively parent. I think biology is a BS excuse and always have. <p>"I have had to fight almost daily for the right to be a caregiver to my children."
Welcome to my world. At least you can have children.<p>My view is not myopic in the least. I work with a significant number of men who have what appear to be very respectable careers that they enjoy and who have families. I don't see alot of women at my level with the same. Well, I don't see alot of women at my level, so maybe that is part of the problem.<p>[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: TheStudent ]</p>

everyone,<p>Coming into school tonight, I caught the tail end of a very good commentary on NPR's "Marketplace" by a woman who is working part time and raising children. Just the little bit I caught seemed to focus on the fact that corporate life is not structured for men or women to be able to have families. Those at the top are usually work-obsessed, so it is no surprise when their values are not in line with many of the people who work for them (ie ENRON). The ability to have both a family and a job should be something that is doable in this day and age--for both men and women. I know it is possible because it is done in other countries such as Germany, France, Italy, Sweden. They all (supposedly) do a better job than we do blending work/family. I've often thought about working over there for a few years just to see if the reality is anything close to the hype.<p>Tonight's segment should be available on-line after 10:00 pm tonight and I'll try to find it and post it here.<p>JL,
You don't annoy me. You should know by now that I enjoy a healthy debate. It's too bad I don't believe in meeting people (especially married ones) from MB. I think you'd find I'm alot jollier and easy going in my real life and not the squint eyed, frowning die-hard feminist I appear to be here.

TheStudent,<p>My sister has lived in Europe for many years, much of that as a single mother - and according to her, it is definitely not hype.

Nellie,<p>That's great news. I'll definately put those places in my job search. Which country(s) has your sister lived in? Was she married to a citizen there?

JL,<p>I don't believe most people make better marital decisions a second, third, whatever time around. I think the rare few (less than 25%) that manage to make a second or subsequent marriage succeed most likely didn't have much changing to do in the first place. Lets not forget that included in that statistic are people whose spouses have died. <p>I think that telling people that they will make better decisions given the knowledge they have now is false. If only because one cannot predict the future and one cannot control the behavior of the other person. Also, by definition, it is more likely that people entering a second or subsequent marriage are stuck with someone who also could not make their first marriage stick, for whatever reason. <p>I know alot of people don't want to believe that, but the statistics kind of speak for themselves.

TS,<p>You are discounting the ability to learn and the power of knowledge. My recommendation is not to close any doors just yet. You are right one cannot foresee the future. But you already have a much clearer idea of what the "ideal" guy for you might be. You may or you may not find him.<p>But, I think you have probably learned more here than you think. Perhaps you will find someone that has learned alot as well. You just never know. <p>Really, that is all I have ever told you. Don't close any doors,but you are right you would be foolish to rush into something. I don't know much, but I do know that you won't do that.<p>Have a good weekend.<p>God Bless,<p>JL

JL,<p>"You are discounting the ability to learn and the power of knowledge."<p>Not really. I just don't think it makes for better marriages a second or subsequent time around. <p>More and more I'm starting to believe that some people are just "born" with the ability to make a marriage work. I mean, not born technically, but that their childhood and early adulthood make it much more realistic that they can find and keep a marriage. Oh sure, that doesn't mean they don't have to try. Just that whatever they try works, while others can spin their wheels forever and never go anywhere. Just like there are some people who can do math and some who can't..and the ones who can't would have to spend so much time and effort to make even the smallest amount of progress, that it is not worth their time. They just find something else to do. I believe that is my situation when it comes to man/woman type relationships. That the amount of effort I'd have to expend is so enormous that it is unrealistic for me to assume I could have a successful marriage my third, fourth, or tenth time around. That the pursuit of such sucks so much life out of me to do other things, that it is unhealthy and dries up whatever joy I could otherwise find in life. Doesn't matter how long I wait or really how much work I do on myself. I'm simply not one of those people who have that skill or can hope to acquire it in my lifetime. That is just how it goes for some people.

The Student,<p>Germany. She went over there as a single mother. Her kids are grown now. <p>I think it is just wishful thinking to hypothesize that successive marriages will be better because of what you have learned - even if you did actually learn something, that is counterbalanced by the fact that it is nearly impossible to trust again. I strongly disagree with the Harleys when they say that you should not trust completely - even though it is foolish to do so, I think it is essential to a relationship to be able to do so - so it is a Catch22. <p>In addition, the divorce rate among subsequent marriages is made lower by the fact that, on the average, people are older when they marry the second time, and the older you are, the more likely you are to die before reaching the number of years of marriage at which you would otherwise divorce. Not to mention the fact that the older you are, the harder it is to find people to have an affair with - although there are far to many women out there willing to have affairs with middle aged men, even poor ones, there are probably fewer who are interested in having an affair with some 75 year old guy who is impotent, broke, and suffering from Alzheimers. <p>To estimate the actual risk, they need to control for factors such as age, health, widowed/divorced, etc. If any such studies have been done, I haven't heard about them - I don't know why they haven't - it seems like it would be a good topic for someone's dissertation.