I'm posting this here, though it might as well work in "Surviving An Affair"
For Christmas, my son received a book entitled something like "In 50 Years....We'll all be Chicks!" The premise is that the "political correctness" of "modern civility" has basically turned modern Western man into a mess of fear and worry about doing something which would permit the femi-Nazis to label him, as unevolved, a neanderthal!
Well, reading through the posts of the last dozen male(?)BS's in SAA has brought me to the following conclusion:"BRING BACK THE NEANDERTHALS!"
Seriously, these men, betrayed and cuckholded by their wives, present themselves as weepy, cringing victims of scheming calculating uber-women, and so beaten down that they will do anything to avoid more abuse (or, worse: displeasure!) by the WW's.
They won't threaten divorce, they won't expose, they won't take difficult stands, they won't stand up for their basic rights! They're practically ovulating, in their weepiness and helplessness.
I'm not advocating that all men swagger around with "Stanley Kowalski" mentalities, but they also should not be playing the part of "Blanche Dubois"! When I found out about my wife's EA, I don't think my reaction would possibly have been viewed as "understated" or "civilized". I'm not all that proud about some of it (being arrested was no fun!), but if nothing else, she knew that deep down our marriage was important to me, and I wasn't going to let her continue playing her game. Her immediate NC, remorse and efforts to help me heal were triggered by this knowledge.
If men show this little backbone after being smacked by their wives' infidelity, it's not hard to see why those same wives had so little regard for their husbands' feelings and responses, opening the gates for their affairs. Returning some real "maleness" to today's supposed "males" would likely prevent a great deal of female "confusion" about the joint roles of a marriage. (Two "wives" are obviously not working well!)
We might need a movement along the lines of neo-Neanderthalism. Who's with me?
We might need a movement along the lines of neo-Neanderthalism. Who's with me?
ummmmmm, who do you think has been leading this movement on this forum for 10 years?? I have been injecting a little TEXAS SWAGGER in your peers on this forum for YEARS! Man up, boys!!
I've read your history, and I certainly would acknowledge that a woman who takes a bat to her WH's car causing $2000 worth of "outrage" would be "man" enough, to help me in my crusade!
Well, just to demonstrate the "castration" imposed by society in the years between our actions, in the early-morning hours of "d-night" I was arrested for (wait for it.........) breaking her glasses!
That's right. Testosterone. The most beautiful of all hormones.
For all of you guys facing an affair from your WW. You need to immediately watch every episode of Spartan: Blood and Sand (on Starz) and then go to action.
Hey, I was arrested for domestic violence, was still on the phone with 911 while holding a knife over my exh. Nevermind I was bleeding and had broken bones and he didn't have a mark on him. They arrested me (him, too, of course) and said it was for brandishing the knife and I said "How the F did you think I got to the phone???"
I still blame OJ Simpson. His trial was going on at the time, in the same county, cops even apologized for it, blamed him, too! lol.
Sadly, no, that might have made it worth it! When I pushed her away from me, fairly forcefully, they flew off and broke. The gendarmes then decided I had done so "recklessly", and since they were entirely hers, and cost more than $250 (she's as blind as a bat without them) I had committed "criminal mischief".
Wellll...I suppose if she took a baseball bat to him then he was in all rights. That's stupid you were taken to jail for self defense.
I believe there is a huge difference between domestic violence and self defense regardless of being a man or a woman. I have a friend that for some reason let his wife hit him over and over again. I finally had to quit hanging around him because the way he let his wife run all over him irked me so bad. One day he finally snapped, hit her back, she called the police, and he went to jail.
Last I heard he was sitting in prison for 3 years for assault and domestic violence and whatever else his wife threw at him.
ooh...criminal mischief. The detectives talked to me after my arrest and asked me how I would handle it differently if anything like that happened in the future and I said, "Yeah, I'd stab him, then call!" lol...they let me go.
Interesting topic. Personally speak, I back down from masculinity at times because I don't know how to deal with the consequences of my actions. For example, I'm a big enough guy, but I'd never engage in a fight as I have no idea how I'd take a hit nor what kind of damage I'm capable of. Even in non-violent type activities, it's as though I don't have the experience to really know what it's about in many cases.
But it is sad though. A while back my 6 year old son was having issues with getting into fights. I was really rather proud of him because in every case he was reacted to someone knocking over his blocks, taking his snack, etc, and always with friends of his. Sadly, parents and teachers had to get involved instead of letting friends work it out. Now, he has to pretty much be a tattle tale. Granted, if he could have picked a better response in most cases, but the fact that he responded and didn't take it was great. What 6 year old has the wisdom to get it right every time.
Back to real manliness...have you read Art of Manliness? Google it, it's a blog, very good. Tends to hone in on when men were men, which was...um...well, a nice place between neanderthal and now.
I tend to see the whole male/female thing as: gals don't like brutes or femmes, and guys don't like ditzes or butches...we all like people who know when to use the harder or softer sides of our characters.
The pendulum swings. It will swing back. First the law did not protect women from physical abuse. So too many men took advantage of the law and abused their wives. Then, with noble intentions, the law went tipped the other way to protect women "at all costs". Now in many jurisdictions a woman can swear an abuse complaint against her husband and, without any chance to rebut her allegations, he can be subject to a restraining order and kicked out of his house. Armed with the backing of that law, many women now emasculate men. Others of us allow ourselves to be emasculated out of fear of what our wives could do if threatened.
The pendulum will swing back. Society will recognize that there is a cost to kicking dad out of the family home. The bar will be raised for abuse claims. Unfortunately, more women will then be abused. But some men will discover they do have cojones.
The wheel will continue to turn. More women will be the higher earning spouse. Divorce will then entail more and more women paying alimony to men. See if the proportion of divorce filings by women doesn't drop. Of course, these swings take place over decades. So does the behavioral reaction.
The pendulum swings. It will swing back. First the law did not protect women from physical abuse. So too many men took advantage of the law and abused their wives. Then, with noble intentions, the law went tipped the other way to protect women "at all costs". Now in many jurisdictions a woman can swear an abuse complaint against her husband and, without any chance to rebut her allegations, he can be subject to a restraining order and kicked out of his house. Armed with the backing of that law, many women now emasculate men. Others of us allow ourselves to be emasculated out of fear of what our wives could do if threatened.
The pendulum will swing back. Society will recognize that there is a cost to kicking dad out of the family home. The bar will be raised for abuse claims. Unfortunately, more women will then be abused. But some men will discover they do have cojones.
The wheel will continue to turn. More women will be the higher earning spouse. Divorce will then entail more and more women paying alimony to men. See if the proportion of divorce filings by women doesn't drop. Of course, these swings take place over decades. So does the behavioral reaction.
It's going to be a tough swing, since males have been dwindling in higher education since the 1970's due to the feminization of the American classroom, and typical male child behavior being given a medical label and Ritalin as the cure.
It's not just political correctness; it's the false assumption that equality must equal sameness, its the assumption that opportunity must guarantee success.
It's all a product of a self-centered, instant-gratification, single-serving, disposable society.
The law of unintended consequences is huge here. Women complain marriage is a bad deal for them. We change the rules. Now women complain that they don't like how men have reacted to the changed rules.
As you say, in the future women as a group will have more education and higher incomes than men. Funny how that may work out for highly educated women. There won't be enough highly educated men to go around. There will be competition among women for the few highly educated men. Suddenly, these men will be the object of competition and female advances. We can see how this has played out in the African-American community, where there is a dearth of marriage-eligible males. Huge drop in the rates of marriage. High levels of infidelity by males. Something tells me that most American women will not be pleased with these changes. But the pc police will continue to argue that female norms should be enforced across all students.
People in favor of strong stable marriages are going to need to recognize that many factors are at play. And be willing to think outside the box about the level of social change that may be necessary to reinvigorate the institution. Even though I have been unhappoily married for most of my marriage, I am still a strong proponent of marriage as a social institution. I still think it is the best context for raising children. I hope that we can preserve it against the forces that are pulling it apart.
Where did you get this idea? It is the foundation of your entire post. Without solid documentation to prove this, the rest of your post is without merit. Documentation, please, about all of these women complaining about how marriage is a bad deal for them.
Where did you get this idea? It is the foundation of your entire post. Without solid documentation to prove this, the rest of your post is without merit. Documentation, please, about all of these women complaining about how marriage is a bad deal for them.
Sorry if my use of tense was misleading. I meant they complained years ago, and we are now living with the consequnces of those - in many cases valid - complaints. In the 1960s and 1970s, women complained that the marital laws and the assumptions of society as to female roles were constraining. So they lobbied to have both the laws and the expectations changed. Do you really want me to cite documents proving that the women's liberation movement exists? Or that many state laws relating to marriage were changed?
I am not suggesting that the changes were entirely negative. There were many positive achievements. Still, the law of unintended consequences applies. I am confident that the proponents of the legal and social changes imagined they were an unadulterated "good thing". But to the extent they were taken to an extreme, as HHH says, the assertion that granting equal rights requires the law and public institutions to ignore any gender differences as logically impossible, they have burdened males in ways that were likely not forseen.
And HHH, we in some ways are simultaneously confronting and perpetuating the gender stereotypes. My D13 is good at math and science, so we are encouraging her to explore these areas. Everyone says colleges are hot to accept female scientists because there aren't enough of them. So in that sesnse we are breaking down gender stereotypes. On the other hand, we are warning her that if she does become a scientist, she may have to date outside her major. Perpetuating the stereotype that male science majors are not "manly" or "cool" enough to date her. What one hand giveth, the other takes away.
Where did you get this idea? It is the foundation of your entire post. Without solid documentation to prove this, the rest of your post is without merit. Documentation, please, about all of these women complaining about how marriage is a bad deal for them.
Sorry if my use of tense was misleading. I meant they complained years ago, and we are now living with the consequnces of those - in many cases valid - complaints. In the 1960s and 1970s, women complained that the marital laws and the assumptions of society as to female roles were constraining. So they lobbied to have both the laws and the expectations changed. Do you really want me to cite documents proving that the women's liberation movement exists? Or that many state laws relating to marriage were changed?
I am not suggesting that the changes were entirely negative. There were many positive achievements. Still, the law of unintended consequences applies. I am confident that the proponents of the legal and social changes imagined they were an unadulterated "good thing". But to the extent they were taken to an extreme, as HHH says, the assertion that granting equal rights requires the law and public institutions to ignore any gender differences as logically impossible, they have burdened males in ways that were likely not forseen.
And HHH, we in some ways are simultaneously confronting and perpetuating the gender stereotypes. My D13 is good at math and science, so we are encouraging her to explore these areas. Everyone says colleges are hot to accept female scientists because there aren't enough of them. So in that sesnse we are breaking down gender stereotypes. On the other hand, we are warning her that if she does become a scientist, she may have to date outside her major. Perpetuating the stereotype that male science majors are not "manly" or "cool" enough to date her. What one hand giveth, the other takes away.
Ah, there is that.
Hmmm... man and nurse... does that sound like it belongs in the same sentence?
Not to most people.
Male as provider is acceptable, man as a care provider? Not so much.
Fortunately, geek is in. The development of our society has left it that one has to be focused and knowledgeable if they wish to succeed. She will likely need to date within her major, because those who are not neo-neanderthal would be threatened by her intelligence.
This is interesting to me, my spouse is recently on this "quest", too. I am confused by how do you define this "manliness" and what yall are looking for. As far as I can tell..
#1. Women are blamed (mom's, female teachers and the fact divorced dads not being around to model behavior.) #2. Perception that women have "taken something" (control?) away.
Are you meaning integrity and strength? P.S. disclaimer.. I have a hard time saying all "men" act like this or they are whimps, and all women act like this or they are "itch@s".
Strength comes from an inner understanding of your moral compass, and your aility to define and stand up for that heading.
But maybe this type of thinking is what people think are causing the issue?
This is interesting to me, my spouse is recently on this "quest", too. I am confused by how do you define this "manliness" and what yall are looking for. As far as I can tell..
#1. Women are blamed (mom's, female teachers and the fact divorced dads not being around to model behavior.) #2. Perception that women have "taken something" (control?) away.
Are you meaning integrity and strength? P.S. disclaimer.. I have a hard time saying all "men" act like this or they are whimps, and all women act like this or they are "itch@s".
Strength comes from an inner understanding of your moral compass, and your aility to define and stand up for that heading.
But maybe this type of thinking is what people think are causing the issue?
This is interesting to me, my spouse is recently on this "quest", too. I am confused by how do you define this "manliness" and what yall are looking for. As far as I can tell..
#1. Women are blamed (mom's, female teachers and the fact divorced dads not being around to model behavior.)
Well, if women are raising the children because they've chosen to divorce their husband and use restraining orders and whatever tools to keep the father out of the child's life, then how could you possibly blame the father?
Ditto for those women who have children out of wedlock and don't allow the father to be part of the child's life. You would blame the father for this?
You've read it here that the women who are leaving husbands by and large are not leaving husbands who engage in marital misconduct. Perhaps leaving romantically challenged husbands, but not husbands who beat or cheat.
Since it appears that once that woman has it in her mind that her husband doesn't cut the mustard, and is all but impossible to win back (Yes it can be done, no it's not the typical outcome.) then how could you possibly blame the man who is not allowed to be a part of his child's daily life?
Originally Posted by barbiecat
#2. Perception that women have "taken something" (control?) away.
Well, any time a woman divorces a man or does something to keep the child away from his father, she has taken something away. She's taken something from both the child and the father. Seldom is anyone better after such a choice. Since 2/3rds to 3/4's of all divorces (and even more when you are talking about the first 7 years of marriage) are filed by the women, I think it's pretty clear that they are indeed taking something from both the children and the father.
Originally Posted by barbiecat
Are you meaning integrity and strength? P.S. disclaimer.. I have a hard time saying all "men" act like this or they are whimps, and all women act like this or they are "itch@s".
Strength comes from an inner understanding of your moral compass, and your aility to define and stand up for that heading.
But the law doesn't look for that in a divorce case. So in many cases, the one with the solid moral compass is the one who is on the outside. While the one with the broken moral compass is the one trusted to raise the children.
Since infidelity doesn't matter in most divorce cases, the women who breaks her vows gets the children, unless she's doing group sex in front of the child present at the local crack house.
Again, is that the betrayed father's fault?
Originally Posted by barbiecat
But maybe this type of thinking is what people think are causing the issue?
Well, it can't be good for those who are impacted by those decisions to end the marriage.
It's not good for most marriages to end, and as long as women are by far the ones choosing to end marriages, the blame for the consequences falls squarely on those shoulders.
#2. Perception that women have "taken something" (control?) away.
Ok.
I'll bite.
Yes. Control. Control over our own lives and destinies. Control over our involvement with our children.
And then we are being controlled by asserting such arguements as [snark]"What have you lost? Control?[/snark]
Furthermore by muffling typical male behavior by associating it with poor behavior in general, we are taught to believe that natural, instinctive male behaviors are; violent, controlling, insensitive, juvenile, low class, uneducated... the list could go on forever.
In all but very few classrooms across America, the classroom has been tailored to such a feminine standpoint, that average boys and tomboy girls are constantly in trouble and being lost, simply because they are kinetic and not static.
Oh, but we are expected to be "men" when we have a problem!
"What? You think you've lost control? Get over it, ya sissy!"
Ditto for those women who have children out of wedlock and don't allow the father to be part of the child's life. You would blame the father for this?
And who's to say it isn't the man's fault that this is happening? It certainly was in my case. I kept the bio father of my older kids away because he was unfit to raise children. He was a danger to others and to himself. After he got himself arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and started threatening to commit suicide and talking about having himself committed to a mental institution, I'm glad I finally woke up and threw him out of our lives for good. Having now met him as adults, so are my older children. They tried to let him back into their lives many years later and ultimately had to cut off contact with him again because apparently he still hasn't changed.
There may be a very valid and good reason why women choose to exclude men from their children's lives. Not in every case, certainly, but vilifying all women and victimizing all men, as a few bitter posters on this thread seem determined to do, hardly seems justified.
I did what I did because I love my kids and I didn't want someone dangerous and destructive in their lives. Yeah, what a terrible feminazi that must make me.
I was just having this discussion on a Christian forum (try having fun with THAT....talk about neanderthal). My DH is absolutely manly. Strong and sexy and.....manly. But he doesn't watch football, he has never played sports, he doesn't go huntin' or drive an F150, I am the only woman he has ever been with. On top of that, he is a music major, likes musical theater, knows how to paint and sew and cook, and yes - wait for it - has Barbra's greatest hits on his ipod.
But he has strong faith, loves his children fiercely, loves his wife, knows how to fix a lawn mower and any appliance, and has to shave a second time to go out "smooth" at night.
I LOVE that he is complex and breaks the mold. I wouldn't trade him for all the belching, farting, woman-ogling, NFL following men on earth.
So there ya go!
Oh, and KT, my dad's PhD is in kinesiology. He was a biology teacher and coach and then a professor and head of the PE department. Except for the fact that he is bald, y'all probably have a lot in common. Oh, and he's 76 and you're only what, 45, 50? hahahahahahahaha
Some of the biggest wimps I know drive Ford F-150's and watch football, so that is not a sign of manliness, but a typical stereotype of manliness.
Manliness to me is a man who has these traits:
1. good character [deeply abiding sense of right and wrong and the courage of his convictions - is not a moral relativist retard]
2. pays his bills ontime, has a good job or when laid off does his best to find a new job and earn a good living - is always responsible and fulfills his obligations
3. doesn't make excuses when he is wrong - takes accountability for his mistakes
4. has firm boundaries and is not scared to protect them, meaning if his wife has an affair, he calmly and firmly opens up a can of HOLY HELL on her affair. He protects himself and his children from her abuse
5. takes care of his family and protects them from harm
6. treats others with dignity and respect
7. is not afraid to set his wife straight if she acts like a tyrant and won't allow himself to be manipulated
My DH is absolutely manly. Strong and sexy and.....manly. But he doesn't watch football, he has never played sports, he doesn't go huntin' or drive an F150, I am the only woman he has ever been with. On top of that, he is a music major, likes musical theater, knows how to paint and sew and cook, and yes - wait for it - has Barbra's greatest hits on his ipod.
But he has strong faith, loves his children fiercely, loves his wife, knows how to fix a lawn mower and any appliance, and has to shave a second time to go out "smooth" at night.
I LOVE that he is complex and breaks the mold. I wouldn't trade him for all the belching, farting, woman-ogling, NFL following men on earth.
So there ya go!
Hey, our H's have a lot in common (except mine can't fix anything - maybe yours could teach him!).
My H hates watching sports on TV. He much prefers the Food Network. He likes chick flicks more than I do (I prefer action/adventure). He has a degree in communications. He loves to talk more than I do (he's also much more affectionate than I am). He cries at sad movies. Watching him with the kids, I can guarantee that his maternal instincts are much stronger than mine are. And I had nothing at all to do with any of this - that's how he came to me.
My H is very tall, very good looking, very sexy, and has more than enough manliness for me.
I also really like the fact that he is a multi-faceted, complete, man who isn't afraid to just be who he is. Really, what's so wrong with that?
Oh, and KT, my dad's PhD is in kinesiology. He was a biology teacher and coach and then a professor and head of the PE department. Except for the fact that he is bald, y'all probably have a lot in common. Oh, and he's 76 and you're only what, 45, 50? hahahahahahahaha
I wish they had an online program for kinesiology. I'd actually like to work as an athlethic trainer and work for a sports medicine clinic one day. But until then, I'll stick with my masters in sports administration and then figure out what I want to do with my Ph.D.
In all but very few classrooms across America, the classroom has been tailored to such a feminine standpoint, that average boys and tomboy girls are constantly in trouble and being lost, simply because they are kinetic and not static.
Originally Posted by HeadHeldHigh
Oh, but we are expected to be "men" when we have a problem!
"What? You think you've lost control? Get over it, ya sissy!"
This is interesting to me, my spouse is recently on this "quest", too. I am confused by how do you define this "manliness" and what yall are looking for.
Let's start with this - We're looking for popular culture and society (let's face it, the real education system here) to stop demeaning the contributions and existence of the male gender.
Examples? Turn on the TV. Watch the commercials. Start listing the ads the basic premise of which is that the poor, sloppy, addled male subject cannot do anything, learn anything, or continue to live without the perky, all-knowledgable female to make it easier for him. (I almost lost it when I saw the ad where the two sisters were congratulating each other on their correct decision regarding treating their father's PROSTATE problem!)
It doesn't even have to be adults. Watch an ad for children's cold medicine. It's the boy whose sneezing, nose-dripping, sleeve-wiping behavior threatens little Lucy Gumdrop, sitting there quietly playing in her spotless gingham dress.
Sadly, the children brought up in this environment get inculcated with these anti-male stereotypes. You'll note that Dr. Harley felt no need to publish guidance on "Women - Don't Leave Your Homes!" Former boy-children, now grown,have it now ingrained in their psyche that IT'S THEIR FAULT! THAT'S the awful contributor to the manifestation on the SAA thread trend that led off this thread here. Instead of rightous anger, increasingly we see betrayed males somehow feeling compelled to apologize for their skank-wife's infidelity.
Speaking of perpetuating stupid male stereotypes, a cartoon was on the other day on channel 72 (Sesame Street type programming).
The dad took the kids to the grocery store and was completely lost. He was clumsy and knocked over a bunch of stuff. Then he forgot one of his kids at the grocery store. Then he was clueless how to prepare a meal.
[ You'll note that Dr. Harley felt no need to publish guidance on "Women - Don't Leave Your Homes!" Former boy-children, now grown,have it now ingrained in their psyche that IT'S THEIR FAULT! THAT'S the awful contributor to the manifestation on the SAA thread trend that led off this thread here. Instead of rightous anger, increasingly we see betrayed males somehow feeling compelled to apologize for their skank-wife's infidelity.
Now wait a minute, it was MELODYLANE who wrote "Men, don't leave your homes!" That is because when a woman says "get out!" he leaves! To my astonishment.
Quote
To the barricades, my friends!
ok, men, you have to start taking some responsibility here for this sad state of affairs. If you didn't comply with tyrannical bullies, they wouldn't succeed. I can't count the times some poor chump has come on the forum who has completely surrendered his family and home to some OM. He moves out so the next loser can move in and then tells us "there is nothing I can do, the woman always wins in court!" OF COURSE THEY WILL WIN IF YOU DON'T FIGHT!! That is a self fulfilling prophecy.
If you allow yourself to be bullied, guess what?? You are going to be bullied!
This is interesting to me, my spouse is recently on this "quest", too. I am confused by how do you define this "manliness" and what yall are looking for.
Let's start with this - We're looking for popular culture and society (let's face it, the real education system here) to stop demeaning the contributions and existence of the male gender.
See, now, this is what I don't get. Why does everyone assume that pop culture and society are THE only education system here?
What happened to parenting as an education system? And, why are we discounting that parents make a difference? Why are we raising children to believe that pop culture is the end all and the be all of everything? Why are kids being raised so that the predominant form of entertainment needs batteries or electricity?
Granted, this is an off topic example, but kids are impressionable and DO learn from their family.
My 6 YO boy looked at me and said "Momma, I don't want to get my sister (whose 3) a bratz doll for Christmas. It's not appropriate for her." He wasn't referring to the small parts, either. He was referring to the fact that we like our children to be appropriately clothed, and he understands that value, at age 6.
Trust me, my child is not some uber-smart kid. He's not a genius. But, he does get things, actually, more than I'd think.
I just don't think that parents should be taken off the hook, so to speak, with responsibilities for teaching kids about gender stereotypes.
p.s. my son was not raised to be a wimp, either. He is a perfect gentleman but he will not allow anyone to run over him. He knows his momma would kick his [censored] if he did!
Whew! I'm glad we got that fixed! Inrecoverynow and MelodyLane will correctly raise the entire next generation!
IRN - If you don't think that popular culture is the primary (not only) set of guidelines that CHILDREN AS A GROUP in this country are exposed to, you are living in a cave somewhere.
Good for you, and us, for doing what we can to offset the negative stereotypes rammed down OUR children's throats.
Now, if we could only get the entire population of parents to read this thread! But the way that the institution of devoted marriage takes a beating by that same popular culture, it's likely they will, soon enough!
It doesn't even have to be adults. Watch an ad for children's cold medicine. It's the boy whose sneezing, nose-dripping, sleeve-wiping behavior threatens little Lucy Gumdrop, sitting there quietly playing in her spotless gingham dress.
I would like an example of the latest commercial featuring a girl in a gingham dress. This sounds like something from the 50's. I'm no TV expert, but this does not sound like any commercial I've ever seen in the past several decades.
Ditto for those women who have children out of wedlock and don't allow the father to be part of the child's life. You would blame the father for this?
And who's to say it isn't the man's fault that this is happening? It certainly was in my case. I kept the bio father of my older kids away because he was unfit to raise children. He was a danger to others and to himself. After he got himself arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and started threatening to commit suicide and talking about having himself committed to a mental institution, I'm glad I finally woke up and threw him out of our lives for good. Having now met him as adults, so are my older children. They tried to let him back into their lives many years later and ultimately had to cut off contact with him again because apparently he still hasn't changed.
There may be a very valid and good reason why women choose to exclude men from their children's lives. Not in every case, certainly, but vilifying all women and victimizing all men, as a few bitter posters on this thread seem determined to do, hardly seems justified.
I did what I did because I love my kids and I didn't want someone dangerous and destructive in their lives. Yeah, what a terrible feminazi that must make me.
Hey! He should have married my best friend's sister!
Her first 2 with her XH are in his full custody, her 3rd is in the custody of the father, and her 4th is in a closed adoption.
Of course, both of these are extreme cases, aren't they? More examples of the exception, and not the norm?
A lot of men will cow down to the mother of their children out of fear; fear that they will cut them out of the lives of their children. They do this with the idea that the legal system will support the mother in doing so.
It's true. In that case, she had jeopardized the safety of her children NUMEROUS times before custody was relinquished.
However, I won't buy it. Guys... man up. It's pretty simple. When you have visitation, it is a legal right. If she denies it, you simply file a police report.
Document, document, document. It goes both ways.
Back to the OT, let's not red herring the conversation, eh?
We don't have to do the victimize/vilify cycle here, because doing so is employs broad, sweeping generalizations which only really apply to minorities in either gender.
IRN - If you don't think that popular culture is the primary (not only) set of guidelines that CHILDREN AS A GROUP in this country are exposed to, you are living in a cave somewhere.
It is my observation that about 70% of the population are not critical thinkers and are very enamored with popular culture and "trends." Alot of people watch those mind numbing, shallow, inane sitcoms [or Oprah] and take their life lessons from that. They stand for nothing and fall for everything. Most people are very susceptible to propoganda.
That is why the teachings of popular culture have such an impact on our children. Most parents don't teach their kids to question EVERYTHING they are taught in schools, etc. When my son came home in 8th grade and told me they were putting Harry S Truman on "trial" for murder for dropping the A-Bomb, I was so alarmed that I took over from there. I taught him how to research and find the truth himself. If a parent does not take over the training of their children, the child will be indoctrinated with the idiocy propogated by popular culture.
IRN - If you don't think that popular culture is the primary (not only) set of guidelines that CHILDREN AS A GROUP in this country are exposed to, you are living in a cave somewhere.
It is my observation that about 70% of the population are not critical thinkers and are very enamored with popular culture and "trends." Alot of people watch those mind numbing, shallow, inane sitcoms [or Oprah] and take their life lessons from that. They stand for nothing and fall for everything. Most people are very susceptible to propoganda.
That is why the teachings of popular culture have such an impact on our children. Most parents don't teach their kids to question EVERYTHING they are taught in schools, etc. When my son came home in 8th grade and told me they were putting Harry S Truman on "trial" for murder for dropping the A-Bomb, I was so alarmed that I took over from there. I taught him how to research and find the truth himself. If a parent does not take over the training of their children, the child will be indoctrinated with the idiocy propogated by popular culture.
Having worked in a school for 7 years, I must say that the things being propagated in our educational system can be much scarier than anything you'd ever find on TV.
I love that commercial. If I ever became a therapist, I'm afraid that's the kind I would end up being, so it's probably a good thing that I didn't major in psychology.
This is interesting to me, my spouse is recently on this "quest", too. I am confused by how do you define this "manliness" and what yall are looking for.
Let's start with this - We're looking for popular culture and society (let's face it, the real education system here) to stop demeaning the contributions and existence of the male gender.
See, now, this is what I don't get. Why does everyone assume that pop culture and society are THE only education system here?
What happened to parenting as an education system? And, why are we discounting that parents make a difference? Why are we raising children to believe that pop culture is the end all and the be all of everything? Why are kids being raised so that the predominant form of entertainment needs batteries or electricity?
Granted, this is an off topic example, but kids are impressionable and DO learn from their family.
My 6 YO boy looked at me and said "Momma, I don't want to get my sister (whose 3) a bratz doll for Christmas. It's not appropriate for her." He wasn't referring to the small parts, either. He was referring to the fact that we like our children to be appropriately clothed, and he understands that value, at age 6.
Trust me, my child is not some uber-smart kid. He's not a genius. But, he does get things, actually, more than I'd think.
I just don't think that parents should be taken off the hook, so to speak, with responsibilities for teaching kids about gender stereotypes.
No, parents shouldn't be let off the hook. Nor should society, nor should GENETICS, or simple human behavior.
Bah! Genetics! What is this hornswaggle?
It's nature AND nurture that influence us - and sometimes we overindulge on the power of nurture. Remember, even with a good family example, the child can choose to ACCEPT or REJECT that lesson. No amount of tongue lashings, time outs, or spankings is going to truly influence if that child ultimately accepts or rejects those lessons.
Some children who were abused as children will be abusers; they will ACCEPT that example. Some will refuse to be abusers; they will REJECT that example.
I was raised both by a nurture parent and a nature parent.
My father was pure nurture; he got up in arms about MTV and rap music, stomped and raved, and moaned.
My mother was pure nature; there was a case where they blamed Beavis and [censored] for the behavior of some adolescents on the news, her reply was "Please, your older brother mooned the neighbors out the front picture window, and he never had Beavis and [censored] to show him how..."
IRN - If you don't think that popular culture is the primary (not only) set of guidelines that CHILDREN AS A GROUP in this country are exposed to, you are living in a cave somewhere.
It is my observation that about 70% of the population are not critical thinkers and are very enamored with popular culture and "trends." Alot of people watch those mind numbing, shallow, inane sitcoms [or Oprah] and take their life lessons from that. They stand for nothing and fall for everything. Most people are very susceptible to propoganda.
That is why the teachings of popular culture have such an impact on our children. Most parents don't teach their kids to question EVERYTHING they are taught in schools, etc. When my son came home in 8th grade and told me they were putting Harry S Truman on "trial" for murder for dropping the A-Bomb, I was so alarmed that I took over from there. I taught him how to research and find the truth himself. If a parent does not take over the training of their children, the child will be indoctrinated with the idiocy propogated by popular culture.
To quote my inner conservative: "What ever happened to personal responsibility?"
Having worked in a school for 7 years, I must say that the things being propagated in our educational system can be much scarier than anything you'd ever find on TV.
I agree!! And it is much more dangerous because kids accept everything their teacher says at face value. I taught my son to BELIEVE NOTHING!! And he would come home and we would research it and then go back and debate the teacher. It was a GREAT experience in that he learned not to be a mindless sheeple who just accepts everything at face value.
The only class I ever yanked him from was something called "Humanities" which was a thinly veiled name for world communism. They were teaching communism as truth, not as it really is: a system of slavery. So, I used this experience to teach him all about communism!
Having worked in a school for 7 years, I must say that the things being propagated in our educational system can be much scarier than anything you'd ever find on TV.
I agree!! And it is much more dangerous because kids accept everything their teacher says at face value. I taught my son to BELIEVE NOTHING!! And he would come home and we would research it and then go back and debate the teacher. It was a GREAT experience in that he learned not to be a mindless sheeple who just accepts everything at face value.
The only class I ever yanked him from was something called "Humanities" which was a thinly veiled name for world communism. They were teaching communism as truth, not as it really is: a system of slavery. So, I used this experience to teach him all about communism!
But, but, but... it's beautiful on paper... much like radical feminism.
To quote my inner conservative: "What ever happened to personal responsibility?"
Why don't we teach it to our children?
I agree! As a parent the buck stops right here. If my son grows up an ignoramus, that falls on me. But most adults are intellectually lazy and just follow the trends. If they are sheeple/followers they can't very well LEAD their own child. And most don't.
To quote my inner conservative: "What ever happened to personal responsibility?"
Why don't we teach it to our children?
I agree! As a parent the buck stops right here. If my son grows up an ignoramus, that falls on me. But most adults are intellectually lazy and just follow the trends. If they are sheeple/followers they can't very well LEAD their own child. And most don't.
Here's how "personal responsibility" worked with my mother;
When he was 16, my older brother got picked up by the police at a local 7-11... drunk. They called her up and asked her to come pick him up. Her response?
"Nope. If he's a big enough boy to get drunk and wander the town, he's a big enough boy to spend a night in jail."
She also had enough sense to know when he was out drinking. Her favorite thing to do was wait until he was on the way home, and sit in the front room eating canned smoked oysters.
"Want some oysters, son?"
"Oh, God... mom... no *urp*"
The fact that my mother is an unrepentant adulteress who took us camping with her AP several times, and trashed my father to me is one thing, but she WAS and still is an AWESOME mother.
[ The fact that my mother is an unrepentant adulteress who took us camping with her AP several times, and trashed my father to me is one thing, but she WAS and still is an AWESOME mother.
You are kidding, right? What about her was awesome if she dragged you into her filthy affair and role modeled corruption? How is that teaching personal responsibility?
[ The fact that my mother is an unrepentant adulteress who took us camping with her AP several times, and trashed my father to me is one thing, but she WAS and still is an AWESOME mother.
You are kidding, right? What about her was awesome if she dragged you into her filthy affair and role modeled corruption? How is that teaching personal responsibility?
Oh, she failed at modeling marriage, or healthy relationships... kinda why I don't lean on her for my own M problems... she has no clue.
Oh, she failed at modeling marriage, or healthy relationships... kinda why I don't lean on her for my own M problems... she has no clue.
HHH, I was also raised by a corrupt parent [father], so I sympathize with you. He really hurt me and my brothers and sisters by teaching us that wrong is right. He wasnt just corrupt in his relationships but in all aspects of life.
[ You'll note that Dr. Harley felt no need to publish guidance on "Women - Don't Leave Your Homes!" Former boy-children, now grown,have it now ingrained in their psyche that IT'S THEIR FAULT! THAT'S the awful contributor to the manifestation on the SAA thread trend that led off this thread here. Instead of rightous anger, increasingly we see betrayed males somehow feeling compelled to apologize for their skank-wife's infidelity.
Now wait a minute, it was MELODYLANE who wrote "Men, don't leave your homes!" That is because when a woman says "get out!" he leaves! To my astonishment.
Quote
To the barricades, my friends!
ok, men, you have to start taking some responsibility here for this sad state of affairs. If you didn't comply with tyrannical bullies, they wouldn't succeed. I can't count the times some poor chump has come on the forum who has completely surrendered his family and home to some OM. He moves out so the next loser can move in and then tells us "there is nothing I can do, the woman always wins in court!" OF COURSE THEY WILL WIN IF YOU DON'T FIGHT!! That is a self fulfilling prophecy.
If you allow yourself to be bullied, guess what?? You are going to be bullied!
I didn't leave my home, yet my unfaithful ex-wife is the primary custodian of my child.
I didn't beat either my wife or my children, yet my unfaithful ex-wife is the primary custodian of my child.
I'm not addicted to drugs, alcohol, video games, porn or anything else, yet my unfaithful ex-wife is the primary custodian of my child.
I was unemployed about 5 minutes of our 7 year marriage, she was a stay at home mom for about 5 of those 7 years, yet my unfaithful ex-wife is the primary custodian of my child.
So while there may be a minority of men who might match writer1's ex-husband, that's the MINORITY of fathers who are denied daily access to their child.
I'm all for actually proving that someone is a fit parent. But let's be clear, having an affair and remaining in that affair, choosing to divorce the father of your children because you are either "unhappy" or you are falling on the penis of another man is evidence that you are an unfit mother, period.
Yet that question is not even allowed in a courtroom when custody is up for grabs.
If you end no fault divorce, make adultery evidence of being an unfit parent, then I'll believe the system is fair. As long as someone can leave simply because she's not happy, or she's having an affair, and have access to any more than 0% of the marital assets and primary custody of any children of that marriage, the system is broken and you'll continue to have fathers who feel the system has discarded them, discounted their input and blames them for the result they had zero part in creating.
As long as unfaithful spouses are getting custody of children from betrayed, faithful non-abusive fathers, or at the very least, they are merely unhappy so they choose divorce (which I would call being unfaithful) then the system is broken, and the betrayed men are not to blame for the outcome.
As Dr H has said here, the minority of those who leave their spouses are leaving men who are guilty of marital misconduct. So while some can point to anecdotes that their husbands were not fit parents, there's like 10 to 20 fit parents who were divorced against their will and turned into visitors according to the courts for every one of those unfit fathers.
Fix that, and I'll bet things improve.
Stop giving mothers who can't honor their vows custody preference over betrayed fathers whose "crime" is being romantically challenged.
To quote my inner conservative: "What ever happened to personal responsibility?"
Why don't we teach it to our children?
Because it's hard to buy someone's vote when you tell them you made the mess, so you clean it up.
So instead, they find a way to make it look like someone else is paying for everyone's mess. At a federal level, pare the government down to Defense, Foreign Policy, and the Federal Judiciary. Everything else, even Social Security should be dismantled or done at the state or local level if folks want it.
But that won't happen because everyone wants something from the government and they buy the lie that someone else is paying for it.
EE, we have men on this forum who have full custody of their children and possession of their homes AND are getting child support from their wives. We coached them to file on grounds of adultery and to ask for the moon. And some of them got it!!
While that is not always possible, there are states where men have a huge advantage if they simply fight.
Have you read Dr Harley's book, Defending Traditional Marriage? He believes we should bring back civil and criminal penalties for adultery and has a whole chapter on this.
Additionally, he thinks that anyone who has an affair with the spouse of a deployed soldier should go to prison for 10 years.
EE, I understand that some men who do fight end up empty handed, however, if no one ever fights they will always end up empty handed. Even in no fault states like Texas a person can gain a legal advantage by introducing the adultery.
EE, we have men on this forum who have full custody of their children and possession of their homes AND are getting child support from their wives. We coached them to file on grounds of adultery and to ask for the moon. And some of them got it!!
While that is not always possible, there are states where men have a huge advantage if they simply fight.
Have you read Dr Harley's book, Defending Traditional Marriage? He believes we should bring back civil and criminal penalties for adultery and has a whole chapter on this.
Additionally, he thinks that anyone who has an affair with the spouse of a deployed soldier should go to prison for 10 years.
Yet those are an even more rare anecdote than the misbehaving husband.
Sure one can win, in what, 1 in 100 cases? Especially if what you and I and Dr H consider to be evidence of being unfit is not allowed in the courts, then what.
You have a fit father who was stable, works up against a stay at home mom who by all state standards is a fit parent. The fight is lost because the evidence of the mother's unfitness is not even allowed in the courts.
I've fought that fight. I kept the house. I see my daughter every Wednesday, every other weekend, two weeks in the Summer and 1/2 of her winter break and claim her every other year on my taxes.
That's actually considered a great deal where I live, but yet my daughter is primarily shaped and molded by an unfaithful ex-wife.
What message does that send when the courts award her mom primary custody? It says mom's behavior was OK, dad is suspect since he can only see her when the courts and mom deem OK.
If you want more folks to fight, make it a winnable fight.
I agree with Dr H, so what. It hasn't changed the laws here. It hasn't retroactively corrected all the situations similar to mine, nor will it. It might prevent such cases in the future, but I suspect that future correction is still a generation or two away.
My state representatives don't care about correcting this. They like the federal money they get for being able to garnish my wages. That's right, there is a federal program that pays states for every child support obliger they garnish from, so they garnish regardless of if the obliger is paying or not to get that federal cash.
So what's the incentive to correct the problem when someone sees money and power in the status quo?
Our state supreme court ruled that sexual conduct cannot be used in a custody case unless it directly impacted the minor child. So in other words, unless the unfaithful mother is doing her affair partner on the dining room table with the child watching, it's not going to matter.
So the faithful father is on the same footing as the unfaithful mother. If she's a stay at home mom, there is no way dad is ever getting custody in my state as long as his only complaint is her affair.
The law here supports that outcome, and until you change the law, no fight will change the outcome.
Stop giving mothers who can't honor their vows custody preference over betrayed fathers whose "crime" is being romantically challenged.
And why do you think the judges, lawyers, and law-makers jointly decided that "motherhood" - good, bad, or skank-provided - is automatically better than "fatherhood"? Because they've been brainwashed by the same crap that the whole society has.
As an aside, my (least) favorite news story in this regard was a case involving a child's death here in enlightened NY. "Mommy" was living with "D1ck" her boyfriend du-jour, when they, evidently jointly, saw to it that her 2-year-old starved to death.
So tell me, who was the greater criminal here? The brood-mare who watched her flesh and blood wither and die, or the boyfriend (not party to the child's conception) who joined her in that exercise?
Result? His sentence was 15 years. Hers? Seven to ten.
Additionally, he thinks that anyone who has an affair with the spouse of a deployed soldier should go to prison for 10 years.
Wonderful! What punishment for the spouse who has the affair? It is convenient around here to paint OP's as predators - overlooking the fact that many waywards are willing prey, if not predators themselves.
So while there may be a minority of men who might match writer1's ex-husband, that's the MINORITY of fathers who are denied daily access to their child.
I guess the main problem I have with these statistics is that they just don't hold true for most of the marriages in my personal experience that end in divorce.
I currently know 3 people who are in the process of getting a divorce (one of them is my own cousin). In all 3 cases, it is the man who is leaving the marriage. In fact, in all 3 cases, the man is leaving his wife because he is currently involved in a relationship with another woman. My cousin is even living with his girlfriend/OW.
So, I know what Dr. Harley says about this and I read the statistics, but looking back over the majority of marriages I personally know that have ended or are ending in divorce, they just don't hold up. Could everyone I know really be an exception to the rule or is there maybe something wrong with these statistics in the first place.
I have a hard time believing that most marriages are ending because the wife either has an affair or is unhappy in the marriage and chooses to end it, but maybe that's because I only actually know of 2 marriages in my entire lifetime that ended this way.
Additionally, he thinks that anyone who has an affair with the spouse of a deployed soldier should go to prison for 10 years.
Wonderful! What punishment for the spouse who has the affair? It is convenient around here to paint OP's as predators - overlooking the fact that many waywards are willing prey, if not predators themselves.
I have no idea, but I agree they should get the same punishment!
But personal experience is meaningless compared to statistics in most cases.
So unless you have thousands or tens of thousands of data points like Dr H, all you have is anecdotes, not statistics.
So your sample space of 10's doesn't compare to the sample space of one who looks at thousands of cases.
I'll go with the word of the one who sees thousands over a few dozen. That doesn't make you a bad person. It just means you don't have sufficient data to make a case for your view.
Oh, she failed at modeling marriage, or healthy relationships... kinda why I don't lean on her for my own M problems... she has no clue.
HHH, I was also raised by a corrupt parent [father], so I sympathize with you. He really hurt me and my brothers and sisters by teaching us that wrong is right. He wasnt just corrupt in his relationships but in all aspects of life.
It's the part of me that doesn't regret lacking exposure; the family picture on both FWW and I's sides... just crap.
Let's see; my mother - unrepentant adulteress, married to an abusive drunk.
My father - the ultimate doormat, married to a manipulative drunk.
Oldest sister - on her 4th marriage, because running is the answer to her problems.
Brother - Currently in an affairage - resulting from an RA due to his own lack of boundaries.
Older sister - divorced due to ex-husband developing a heroin addiction. Marriage was a "for the kids" sham long before his drug addiction; role-reversal for the neglected SAHM, instead a SAHD.
MIL - Serial, unrepentant adultress, married to her last AP. Former drug abuser.
FIL1 - AP - decent enough dude, BUT, functional alcholic and unrecovered drug user.
FIL2 - Actually a great guy, but currently estranged from W #3 - former drug addict, alcoholic, and wife beater (which is why MIL started A and affairage #1).
BIL - Perpetual freeloader - with a human slimeball of a woman who hasn't worked a day since she's been with him - won't let him work if it with "the wimmens" in any form - BIL hasn't had a legitimate job since I can remember, constantly working "under the table" 3 kids, 2 together, one from hobag's former BF. Both drug addicts
SIL - Renter, used to shack up with a drug addict BF in his mother's home - because she enables her sons to both be drug users and freeloaders. Currently has custody of BIL's younger 2 kids. Lives like the world owes her a favor - moved out at 16 to shack up with her XBF because, you know, rules suck and stuff.
So while there may be a minority of men who might match writer1's ex-husband, that's the MINORITY of fathers who are denied daily access to their child.
I guess the main problem I have with these statistics is that they just don't hold true for most of the marriages in my personal experience that end in divorce.
I currently know 3 people who are in the process of getting a divorce (one of them is my own cousin). In all 3 cases, it is the man who is leaving the marriage. In fact, in all 3 cases, the man is leaving his wife because he is currently involved in a relationship with another woman. My cousin is even living with his girlfriend/OW.
So, I know what Dr. Harley says about this and I read the statistics, but looking back over the majority of marriages I personally know that have ended or are ending in divorce, they just don't hold up. Could everyone I know really be an exception to the rule or is there maybe something wrong with these statistics in the first place.
I have a hard time believing that most marriages are ending because the wife either has an affair or is unhappy in the marriage and chooses to end it, but maybe that's because I only actually know of 2 marriages in my entire lifetime that ended this way.
You know of three men. What of the women in those affairs? Are they all unmarried? I suspect not. Right there means you know of some marriages where the woman is leaving the man, or at least cheating on him.
Are these women honoring the vows the men you know of took? I see marriage as more than just a vow to be honored by the two who marry one another. At least in my vow, the congregation also spoke that they would uphold the vow. I think society does have a responsibility to support those vows and anyone who chooses to get involved with someone who is not their spouse is just as guilty as the wayward spouse.
But we don't hold the woman to the same standard. All sorts of talk about John Edwards, but relatively little (outside of here) about how wrong his mistress' behavior was.
Or worse, if there is a woman in an affair, she is treated as some sort of victim. Either her husband drove her to the affair, (I.E. what you said before since I was clearly talking about men who engaged in ZERO marital misconduct, I'm taking your response about the man being at fault as you are clearly blaming the innocent victim), if she leaves it's probably his fault, or she was fooled by the man she's having an affair with. She was seduced, didn't know he was married, believed him when he said she beat him, whatever nonsense.
If a man tried that sort of thing, he'd be run out of here on a rail. If a woman does, it's likely she'll get the Oprah response, "you go girl!" "You deserve better..." Or what my pastor said regarding my ex-wife's affair, "What did you do to cause her to have an affair?"
From what I've seen, since most divorces occur early in the marriage, the majority of those are filed by women. In other words, when there are still minor children living at home, odds are far greater that mom will file than will dad.
When do those odds reverse? When the children have left. I.E. longer term marriages. Men are more likely to file for divorce when the custody of their children is not at stake because they are adults.
There are exceptions, but I believe that holds for the majority of cases.
Women perceive that they'll get a better deal in divorce when they are younger and they have more power in the dating market. I.E. they are still youthful and best able to attract a mate.
When do men choose divorce? When they think they have a better deal in the divorce market. When they have less to lose, (their children) and they'll do better in the dating market. The dating market gives older, established men an advantage when it comes to attracting a partner.
Those are generalizations, but if you look at the data, it holds up well.
Those choosing divorce are women with children at home and men with children out of the nest.
Since more marriages end early compared to late, more divorces will be filed by women compared to men.
People choose divorce when it appears to be a good deal for them. I simply suggest that we make divorce a bad deal for anyone who is guilty of marital misconduct or for those who choose to divorce someone whom they cannot or will not prove marital misconduct.
Marital misconduct should be prosecuted, but it isn't, and that hurts the children who are torn from one parent or another.
But personal experience is meaningless compared to statistics in most cases.
So unless you have thousands or tens of thousands of data points like Dr H, all you have is anecdotes, not statistics.
So your sample space of 10's doesn't compare to the sample space of one who looks at thousands of cases.
I'll go with the word of the one who sees thousands over a few dozen. That doesn't make you a bad person. It just means you don't have sufficient data to make a case for your view.
I get that. I'm just saying for me, personally, it's hard to feel sorry for men in general when I know so many of them who are screwing over their wives right now. And everyday, we have new women show up here who are being cheated on and abused. It isn't just guys with cheating wives who come here. It's both. So obviously, there are still plenty of men out there who are neither loyal nor faithful.
You know of three men. What of the women in those affairs? Are they all unmarried? I suspect not. Right there means you know of some marriages where the woman is leaving the man, or at least cheating on him.
Actually, I know for sure 2 of them are not married. One has never been married (she's much younger than the man) and one is divorced. I believe the 3rd has never been married either.
I see marriage as more than just a vow to be honored by the two who marry one another. At least in my vow, the congregation also spoke that they would uphold the vow. I think society does have a responsibility to support those vows and anyone who chooses to get involved with someone who is not their spouse is just as guilty as the wayward spouse.
I agree with this.
My mother was an OW. She wasn't married at the time that she had an A with my father and got pregnant with me, but he was married, with 3 children. What she did was most definitely wrong. They were both wrong.
But as far as the betrayal of my father's wife goes, I do think his was worse. After all, he was the one who was married to her. He was the one who took vows saying he would honor her and be faithful to her. My mother didn't make those promises to her. My father did.
In my own case, I was mad at my H's OW for "betraying" me, especially since she was supposed to be my "friend." But I was even more angry with my WH. After all, he was the one who married me and made a lifelong commitment to me, not her.
People choose divorce when it appears to be a good deal for them. I simply suggest that we make divorce a bad deal for anyone who is guilty of marital misconduct or for those who choose to divorce someone whom they cannot or will not prove marital misconduct.
Marital misconduct should be prosecuted, but it isn't, and that hurts the children who are torn from one parent or another.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, whether that be the man or the woman.
My family is about as bad. But I am a voracious reader with a functioning left brain so I eventually learned about right and wrong on my own. Sounds like you somehow figured it out, too!
Stop giving mothers who can't honor their vows custody preference over betrayed fathers whose "crime" is being romantically challenged.
And why do you think the judges, lawyers, and law-makers jointly decided that "motherhood" - good, bad, or skank-provided - is automatically better than "fatherhood"? Because they've been brainwashed by the same crap that the whole society has.
As an aside, my (least) favorite news story in this regard was a case involving a child's death here in enlightened NY. "Mommy" was living with "D1ck" her boyfriend du-jour, when they, evidently jointly, saw to it that her 2-year-old starved to death.
So tell me, who was the greater criminal here? The brood-mare who watched her flesh and blood wither and die, or the boyfriend (not party to the child's conception) who joined her in that exercise?
Result? His sentence was 15 years. Hers? Seven to ten.
Amen, amen, amen, brother! The system stinks and sets children up to be abused, especially physically and sexually, by their egg donor's shack-ups.
I can't understand why the courts don't acknowledge it, because the school's definitely deal with the fall-out.
I can't think of one high profile case where a bio-dad hooked up with his GF and starved, beat, assaulted, etc his child to death. It's cases of mothers with their SO's that do this that are in the news.
The parental alienation that so many fathers experience is uncalled for. The laws definitely need changing.
I'm posting this here, though it might as well work in "Surviving An Affair"
For Christmas, my son received a book entitled something like "In 50 Years....We'll all be Chicks!" The premise is that the "political correctness" of "modern civility" has basically turned modern Western man into a mess of fear and worry about doing something which would permit the femi-Nazis to label him, as unevolved, a neanderthal!
Well, reading through the posts of the last dozen male(?)BS's in SAA has brought me to the following conclusion:"BRING BACK THE NEANDERTHALS!"
Seriously, these men, betrayed and cuckholded by their wives, present themselves as weepy, cringing victims of scheming calculating uber-women, and so beaten down that they will do anything to avoid more abuse (or, worse: displeasure!) by the WW's.
They won't threaten divorce, they won't expose, they won't take difficult stands, they won't stand up for their basic rights! They're practically ovulating, in their weepiness and helplessness.
I'm not advocating that all men swagger around with "Stanley Kowalski" mentalities, but they also should not be playing the part of "Blanche Dubois"! When I found out about my wife's EA, I don't think my reaction would possibly have been viewed as "understated" or "civilized". I'm not all that proud about some of it (being arrested was no fun!), but if nothing else, she knew that deep down our marriage was important to me, and I wasn't going to let her continue playing her game. Her immediate NC, remorse and efforts to help me heal were triggered by this knowledge.
If men show this little backbone after being smacked by their wives' infidelity, it's not hard to see why those same wives had so little regard for their husbands' feelings and responses, opening the gates for their affairs. Returning some real "maleness" to today's supposed "males" would likely prevent a great deal of female "confusion" about the joint roles of a marriage. (Two "wives" are obviously not working well!)
We might need a movement along the lines of neo-Neanderthalism. Who's with me?
I read your post and while I can see your point in some areas.....I was a bit surprised it was on here. I think we have evolved from dragging our nuckles on the ground. I dont think hitting yoour wife makes you more of a man...in fact it makes you an abuser. I am a woman whos H had an EA on me. He is every bit a man and we hold very traditional roles so what would be his excuse? If he was truely a man.....full of maleness as you put it, he would not have done this to me. Texas swagger is alive and well and ridiculous.
I cringe at the idea of bringing back old fashioned "maleness" because the males I know in my parents generation are the most unpleasant creatures I can imagine for the most part. They blame the women in their lives for everything that went wrong for them, daughters included, and award themselves the credit for everything that went right. They dismiss anything a woman has to say as being unworthy of listening to and are outright rude to whoever they please. They are damaged people with no ability to love truly.
My husband on the other hand, messes up sometimes but holds his head up high and works on doing better, is strong and capable of taking care of us when we need it but not worried about how he appears to people so he doesn't need to bolster his own ego by putting someone else down below him. He is forgiving and loving, while holding me to the ideals we have set for ourselves together. We are equals, he would no more tolerate me walking all over him than it would occur to him to try to railroad me into something. I love him. I don't want a neanderthal, I want a caring man who knows his own worth, and mine.
I cringe at the idea of bringing back old fashioned "maleness" because the males I know in my parents generation are the most unpleasant creatures I can imagine for the most part. They blame the women in their lives for everything that went wrong for them, daughters included, and award themselves the credit for everything that went right. They dismiss anything a woman has to say as being unworthy of listening to and are outright rude to whoever they please. They are damaged people with no ability to love truly.
My husband on the other hand, messes up sometimes but holds his head up high and works on doing better, is strong and capable of taking care of us when we need it but not worried about how he appears to people so he doesn't need to bolster his own ego by putting someone else down below him. He is forgiving and loving, while holding me to the ideals we have set for ourselves together. We are equals, he would no more tolerate me walking all over him than it would occur to him to try to railroad me into something. I love him. I don't want a neanderthal, I want a caring man who knows his own worth, and mine.
Since you and I are around the same age, I will agree... however... this puts poor NG in that "Sweet Spot."
Unfortunately, it's correct.
The men of my father's generation - those that are chest-beating "manly men" - are losers. They are self-indulgent, self-entitled, self-deluded jerks that got half of the picture from their own fathers (who believed so much in hard work, that they often forgot to be fathers to their sons).
The octogenarians and above are pretty amazing men, but they were of a generation that sometimes overemphasized work over family - yet somehow were still able to strike the balance.
However, to be fair, it is also some of the chest-beating females of that generation that created the problem - they can do everything as good as men, if not better, because men are pigs.
Unfortunately the men around them often were pigs. To be fair, they had some pretty awful parenting advice given to THEIR parents, but at some point personal responsibility has to take over.
I can't respect the men in the generation above me though usually, although I did meet the father of a close friend recently who made me think twice. I think he's the first man around my father's age (55-65ish) who I've ever seen be really interested in what others have to say. I know I have a bit of a messed up background (alcoholic father who was himself messed up by his abusive parents and thankfully broke the cycle of the physical abuse by never hitting us) but I see the same sorts of men everywhere I look. DH's father is one of the most chauvinistic unpleasant people I've ever met, when I gained weight after having our first daughter he tried to convince my hubby to get on a dating site to meet someone slim, and told dh that I was just out to screw him over (because I stand up for myself and don't "do as I'm told").
Unfortunately the men around them often were pigs. To be fair, they had some pretty awful parenting advice given to THEIR parents, but at some point personal responsibility has to take over.
I can't respect the men in the generation above me though usually, although I did meet the father of a close friend recently who made me think twice. I think he's the first man around my father's age (55-65ish) who I've ever seen be really interested in what others have to say. I know I have a bit of a messed up background (alcoholic father who was himself messed up by his abusive parents and thankfully broke the cycle of the physical abuse by never hitting us) but I see the same sorts of men everywhere I look. DH's father is one of the most chauvinistic unpleasant people I've ever met, when I gained weight after having our first daughter he tried to convince my hubby to get on a dating site to meet someone slim, and told dh that I was just out to screw him over (because I stand up for myself and don't "do as I'm told").
Oh, no. There are plenty of men of that generation who are worthy of admiration. That could really go for any generation, however.
Men are disgusting pigs. The species will be better off when we figure out how to do without them. Well, at least until the space aliens arrive.
Mrs. Hold had lunch yesterday with a friend from the rape counselling center. The friend is age 60 and never goes to the dentist alone. Why not? When she was a child, her dentist molested her. Then he extracted one of her teeth - without anesthesia. He said if she told anyone about the molestation, he would do that to all the rest of her teeth.
Men are disgusting pigs. The species will be better off when we figure out how to do without them. Well, at least until the space aliens arrive.
Mrs. Hold had lunch yesterday with a friend from the rape counselling center. The friend is age 60 and never goes to the dentist alone. Why not? When she was a child, her dentist molested her. Then he extracted one of her teeth - without anesthesia. He said if she told anyone about the molestation, he would do that to all the rest of her teeth.
Men are not disgusting pigs, disgusting pigs are disgusting pigs, male or female. It just happens that I've met a lot of them that are male and of a certain age. Thanks in part to marriage builders and to a greater extent, my husband, I have learned this is not a natural male state. When I look at the females of my parents generation they are just as messed up, its just less obvious because they're quieter about it and it has never been directed at me. It takes more time to see the unpleasantness when its directed at others not yourself but believe me I see it now.
Men are not disgusting pigs, disgusting pigs are disgusting pigs, male or female. It just happens that I've met a lot of them that are male and of a certain age. Thanks in part to marriage builders and to a greater extent, my husband, I have learned this is not a natural male state. When I look at the females of my parents generation they are just as messed up, its just less obvious because they're quieter about it and it has never been directed at me. It takes more time to see the unpleasantness when its directed at others not yourself but believe me I see it now.
Your point that I supposedly supported all highlighted in red is that chest thumping neanderthal men don't cheat on their wives??????I don't support that point at all because I don't think that a "lack of maleness" has anything to do with cheating. It's a lack of character and that would apply to both genders. May WS lacks character. There is definately a change in our society that has occured with gender roles both in the workplace and at home. Technology places a part in that change as well. We can never go back to the place where I believe you are suggesting we should be. Life changes, roles must change as well. If you believe that men cheated less when they acted, as you suggest with more maleness, then you are wrong. Cheating happens for so many reasons.
I absolutely believe that a chest-thumping neanderthal would be faithful.
After all, it's hard to club the second one while you are still dragging the first.
To be serious, I would bet more often that a "machismo" type male will cheat every time, because they overemphasize and overcompensate to prove their "masculinity."
What NG is referring to is being a real man. A man of his word, and a man of integrity.
What NG is referring to is being a real man. A man of his word, and a man of integrity.
Yes. And yes. But also a man willing to fight for what he believes is right. No one "fights" anymore. Hands are wrung, heads are shaken, "tsk, tsks" are uttered, but increasingly NO ONE says "This cannot be - I will at least start the effort to fix it."
Sadly, we're increasingly seeing that this lack of experience in "fighting" leaves men woefully unprepared when it's necessary to fight for their marriage and family.
But also a man willing to fight for what he believes is right. No one "fights" anymore. Hands are wrung, heads are shaken, "tsk, tsks" are uttered, but increasingly NO ONE says "This cannot be - I will at least start the effort to fix it."
I agree 100%. This was my experience at the end of my marriage and in a dating relationship that recently ended.
There's an 'acceptance' of how things are and a very firm unwillingness to try or change or fight for a better way.
It's just this passive surrender that I don't understand. It's extremely frustrating.
I think a big part of the problem is that many men are socialized from childhood that doing anything that displeases women, that gets women upset or mad at them, is bad and therefore should not be done. Men get this from boyhood from their mothers, from (mostly female) teachers, and from their girlfriends as they become teenagers.
On the other hand, the thing about a decent exposure of an affair, is that it usually makes the wayward spouse upset, in fact it often makes them FURIOUS. Interfering in a wayward's affair in any way may bring the wayward's "wrath" upon the BS whos' only trying to save their marriage. Many men are simply not prepared to deal with a raging, raving woman threatening horrible consequences and/or saying how much they HATE the man they once professed to love. Many men can guess (or fear) this will be what they'll have to deal with, and they don't want to, because their strongly socialized don't-piss-her-off instincts tell them that this will end their marriage for sure, that this will drive her into the arms of her OM forever, never to return (and sometimes that IS the result of exposure).
What NG is referring to is being a real man. A man of his word, and a man of integrity.
Yes. And yes. But also a man willing to fight for what he believes is right. No one "fights" anymore. Hands are wrung, heads are shaken, "tsk, tsks" are uttered, but increasingly NO ONE says "This cannot be - I will at least start the effort to fix it."
Sadly, we're increasingly seeing that this lack of experience in "fighting" leaves men woefully unprepared when it's necessary to fight for their marriage and family.
They don't know how to fight, they only know how to argue.
Don't know how to make a point, only know how to make noise.
I fought. I exposed the afffair. I sought custody. Yet I still ended up divorced and a visitor dad.
But your anecdote does not negate the scads of marriages that were saved via exposure over on the SAA forum. Exposure is no guarantee, but it often works. It makes no sense to not even try just because some lose.
And secondly, we know several men who won primary custody of their children and possession of their homes and very favorable financial arrangements by fighting their adulterous wives. They won because they fought like hell. They would have lost if they gave up without trying.
I am somewhat alarmed at the outdated social stereotypes being flung around about men on this thread. Men are "pigs?" huh? Surely we have moved beyond the mindless bumper stickers that came out of the brainless, heady old days of the 60's where women in jackboots really were pigs? For every male "pig" aged 50-60 I can show you an equal amount of women who are just as bad, if not worse. The point is that there are an equal amount of pigs on both sides in all age groups and I DO NOT think it is an accurate or fair generalization to define men in that age group as "pigs."
Nor were they "oppressive." That characterization drives me insane because it says that women are weak and silly and dependent upon MEN to give them liberty, jobs, whatever. If they are that weak, then they can't very well claim to be EQUAL. I would suggest that weakness is your problem and not men if your equality is contingent upon being given something by a man. Men didn't need permission to be free so I don't know why these silly broads did.
And lastly, men need to stop whining about being oppressed and start standing up for themselves. They are no better than the weak, silly harpies of the 60's who complained they were being "oppressed." Stop being a pansy. If you choose to be a pansy, then don't whine when people walk over you.
I am sure its fairly limited to the area and social class I grew up in so I don't generalise anymore, but I did very much grow up with the idea that men were unpleasant creatures with no sensitivity towards anyone else and no capability of feeling love or anything other than anger. I'm guessing thats because the men around me were conditioned to only show anger.
I was trying to use this as a way to show how my attitudes have changed, in part because of marriage builders and understanding more about men. I love my husband more than I can say, more than I could ever imagine, so that there was a pretty big knock to my old ideas about men.
But I do believe my anecdote reflects the typical results.
You can present your "results not typical" outcomes in the same fashion as those diet commercials you see on TV, but that doesn't change the outcome.
Most guys when they fight, end up just I did when I fought, in the very same place as those who didn't fight.
If I believed the fight would make any difference in a majority of cases where the fight was fought, I'd advise folks to fight.
Now I simply advise men not to have children. They can't make you a visitor to kids you don't have. I really think things have to reach a critical point before folks are going to say this isn't working. It will take even more men refusing to marry and more women realizing that it's not just men who are the problem and let the pendulum swing back.
It will take more than your anecdotes to convince me to change my mind on this. When I see the majority of those fighting actually winning, I'll believe it's worth the fight. Right now, that's not the case. Now it may be in other states, but here, as I've said, a stay at home mom who chooses to have an affair will be the primary custodian of the children. An affair is not going to make someone an unfith parent in the courts. Since courts are about keeping things the same or as similar as possible for the children, the working dad is going to lose every time to the stay at home mom if she wants to be the primary custodian and affair participant.
Has Dr Harley ever come on here and said that WW's typically return home when a BH follows his plan? Has he ever said what the typical outcomes are when his plan is followed?
I believe it's possible. My question as always is, what is the typical outcome WHEN the plans are followed? When there is a WW and a BH and the BH follows the plan, what are the results in the last 100 such cases? How many BH's experienced a return of the WW, and how many ended up divorced and visitors to their children?
When I see the majority of those fighting actually winning, I'll believe it's worth the fight. Right now, that's not the case.
So you will only fight if a majority wins? Then your premise simply becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. A majority seem to surrender before the battle, so of course, if the majority surrenders, then of course, the majority will lose. I doubt that the many BH's who WON their marriages back or won a favorable settlement in divorce feel it was not "worth it."
I don't know how many do lose, but I do know that those who don't try are guaranteed to lose. A majority will lose if a majority don't try.
If everyone used your philosophy of only try something if winning is guarateed, then no one would ever win. And nothing would ever change. I sure would not be sober for 26 years this April if I believed that since only 1 in 10 alcoholics die sober. Most never remain sober longer than 5 years.
I was trying to use this as a way to show how my attitudes have changed, in part because of marriage builders and understanding more about men. I love my husband more than I can say, more than I could ever imagine, so that there was a pretty big knock to my old ideas about men.
I gotcha. I was raised with similar attitudes towards men. The men I was exposed to in real life, though, didn't fit the demonic portrayal given by my radical feminist mother. The men were kind, caring and rational, the women were angry and bitter. i don't know where my mother got these notions about being "oppressed" because all my female ancestors going back to my great-grandmothers were self made businesswomen. They were not weak women like these 60's radicals.
In my intercollegiate athletics class one of the things we're discussing is Title IX which has become a discrimination against mens sports.
Related to this thread, I wished the courts would come out with a marriage clause taht stated whomever has an affair loses everything in the case of divorce.
When I see the majority of those fighting actually winning, I'll believe it's worth the fight. Right now, that's not the case.
So you will only fight if a majority wins? Then your premise simply becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. A majority seem to surrender before the battle, so of course, if the majority surrenders, then of course, the majority will lose. I doubt that the many BH's who WON their marriages back or won a favorable settlement in divorce feel it was not "worth it."
I don't know how many do lose, but I do know that those who don't try are guaranteed to lose. A majority will lose if a majority don't try.
If everyone used your philosophy of only try something if winning is guarateed, then no one would ever win. And nothing would ever change. I sure would not be sober for 26 years this April if I believed that since only 1 in 10 alcoholics die sober. Most never remain sober longer than 5 years.
I fought, I lost, there is no way I'd advise anyone to fight, period. If I got a different result, I'd give a different recommendation.
If something works for you, you recommend it. If it doesn't work, then one cannot in good conscience recommend it. I am giving the only logical recommendation I can give given my experienced results. If you want to change my mind, change my result.
Your comparison to alcoholism is an apples to oranges comparison. Your decision to drink or not drink is entirely yours, not dependent upon the choices of another person. The outcome of any legal battle or relationship issue is not dependent only upon your actions. Therefore, it's not a valid comparison.
If it were my behavior and only my behavior considered, then I'd think I'd end up the winner. However, I don't get to decide. Therefore, I simply recommend not ending up in a place where someone else decides your fate.
Then and only then can it be just like your battle with alcohol, which is essentially a battle with your own behavior.
EE, what you're recommending is completely surrending to the enemys terms. I mean, if you're going to lose, you might as well go down fighting.
I coach soccer. I have a very successful team (part of which I feel is due to my leadership and knowledge of the game as well as understanding where each players needs to be on the field to play their part). We're a 4A team, and we play 6A teams as nondistrict games. It's often difficult for a 4A team to compete against 6A schools. And we realize that when we play certain teams that we will more than likely not win. However, we don't run from the challenge and we play hard till the bitter end. Sometimes we win and sometimes we don't. Playing against those teams makes us much better when we go to play our district 4A teams. But we certainly don't walk into the match giving up.
Maybe women will more often win in court. However, that doesn't mean you don't fight tooth and nail.
I fought, I lost, there is no way I'd advise anyone to fight, period. If I got a different result, I'd give a different recommendation.
If something works for you, you recommend it. If it doesn't work, then one cannot in good conscience recommend it. I am giving the only logical recommendation I can give given my experienced results. If you want to change my mind, change my result.
Your comparison to alcoholism is an apples to oranges comparison. Your decision to drink or not drink is entirely yours, not dependent upon the choices of another person. The outcome of any legal battle or relationship issue is not dependent only upon your actions. Therefore, it's not a valid comparison.
No, it is not apples to oranges. Your premise is that nothing should be done unless there is a guaranteed outcome, so it is most certainly analogous. If I used your logic I would have never tried. It is the same with BH's coming here for help. Just because you lost doesn't mean others do.
Like I said, many others have won. No guarantee other than the fact that one is guaranteed to lose if they DON'T try. Your plan comes with a guarantee to lose. Harley's come with a CHANCE, albeit a small chance.
As far as telling newcomers not to try, that there is no hope, you might want to rethink that since the purpose of the forum is not to promote your personal opinion to newcomers, but Dr Harley's opinion. The sign on the door is Marriage Builders.
EE, what you're recommending is completely surrending to the enemys terms.
Now, THAT is a guarantee to LOSE. EE, you criticize this plan as having no guarantee to win, when your plan is a guarantee to LOSE. Your plan has a 100% guarantee to LOSE.
Why would you recommend that to anyone unless you want them to lose just like you did? Why not send them to other men who saved their marriages or came out favorably in court in the hopes they can emulate success like them? Do you want others to lose too?
"Hey, follow my plan!! It is guaranteed to lose! Lose like me!!" <-------who would sign on for that?
You haven't read all my advice. Because the real advice is do not get into a situation where you are faced with the fight. Don't have kids. Eventually, folks will realize why the quality men will not marry, will not have children.
It's the Mr Miagi fight, "no be there" advice.
Now you may say it's not fighting, I contend it is a fight, but on my terms, not the terms specified by others.
It's Viet Nam. The other side has military superiority, but still lost the fight because of unconventional warfare.
I'm not saying don't fight. I'm saying this is not the fight nor the tactics to fight and win. I will not advise anyone to fight the fight on those terms.
I fight the fight by being the best father I can be when I have time with my child. I save my resources for the fights I can win and those that matter.
So to be clear, I'm saying don't fight a fight you cannot win and that will not matter. Fight the battle on your terms, terms where you can win.
So far, the fights most recently recommended are not fights that are typically winnable, and therefore inadvisable.
Originally Posted by kilted_thrower
EE, what you're recommending is completely surrending to the enemys terms. I mean, if you're going to lose, you might as well go down fighting.
I coach soccer. I have a very successful team (part of which I feel is due to my leadership and knowledge of the game as well as understanding where each players needs to be on the field to play their part). We're a 4A team, and we play 6A teams as nondistrict games. It's often difficult for a 4A team to compete against 6A schools. And we realize that when we play certain teams that we will more than likely not win. However, we don't run from the challenge and we play hard till the bitter end. Sometimes we win and sometimes we don't. Playing against those teams makes us much better when we go to play our district 4A teams. But we certainly don't walk into the match giving up.
Maybe women will more often win in court. However, that doesn't mean you don't fight tooth and nail.
EE, what you're recommending is completely surrending to the enemys terms. I mean, if you're going to lose, you might as well go down fighting.
I coach soccer. I have a very successful team (part of which I feel is due to my leadership and knowledge of the game as well as understanding where each players needs to be on the field to play their part). We're a 4A team, and we play 6A teams as nondistrict games. It's often difficult for a 4A team to compete against 6A schools. And we realize that when we play certain teams that we will more than likely not win. However, we don't run from the challenge and we play hard till the bitter end. Sometimes we win and sometimes we don't. Playing against those teams makes us much better when we go to play our district 4A teams. But we certainly don't walk into the match giving up.
Maybe women will more often win in court. However, that doesn't mean you don't fight tooth and nail.
What I'm saying is if I'm a baseball player, I don't compete on the soccer field. To try to win at soccer when I'm a baseball player is insanity.
Fight the fight on your terms, not on terms dictated by others. So for me, I'd fight on the diamond, not a soccer field.
I recommend anyone considering a fight that they read the Art of War by SunTzu. I read it as a young cadet and find it's still applicable today.
The jist is to avoid the fight if possible, but if you have to fight, fight smart, fight on your own terms and to win, win quickly and decisively.
You have to know yourself, the enemy and the battlefield should be of your choosing.
The fights folks are suggesting men fight here violate all of those principles, and I would not advise a man seeking to win to engage in battle on those terms.
Okay. But what if a man wants to have a son or a daughter? I think maybe a better idea is to start a movement...a change. I don't think the idea is to stop having children. I think a lot of marriage would cease. I'm not even sure how you would have that conversation when dating, "No, honey. I don't want to have kids because one day you might have an affair and divorce me and take everything."
Of course there are a lot of children that would love a home sitting with an adoption agency. Maybe adopt before getting married?
If you're so passionate about this, what have you don't to change things? Maybe you could start a march to put an 'at fault' clause back in divorce.
EE, my boys are competitive and welcome challenges. So do I. If the baseball team challenged us to a game, we'd take them up on it. Sure we'd prob lose. But we'd still take on the challenge.
A challenge is still a challenge regardless of where, when, and how it is fault. Some challenges are just more challenging than others.
EE, my boys are competitive and welcome challenges. So do I. If the baseball team challenged us to a game, we'd take them up on it. Sure we'd prob lose. But we'd still take on the challenge.
A challenge is still a challenge regardless of where, when, and how it is fault. Some challenges are just more challenging than others.
The stakes are very different between a pickup baseball game and the custody of a child.
Your children will not suffer long lasting emotional trama if you lose a baseball game. However, if you have a child with someone who ultimately largely removes you from their life, the damage is far greater and long lasting.
I can both welcome a challenge and not be willing to put another human child on this earth to face that prospect and not be inconsistent.
I was very clear with my now wife that I did not want any children and why, that I did not want another child taken away from me.
You know what, instead of telling me I should feel or believe that way, she understood.
Sorry I've been away from my own hornet's-nest-kicked-over thread for almost a day, but - GREAT CAESAR'S GHOST - the only two posters assiduously telling men to stand up and act like men appear to be KT, and M/L !!!!! (HHH is darting around throwing odd quips, so can't be put down to either side.)
GUYS,YOU ARE THE **edit** PROBLEM ! "I won't fight if I can't win!", "But she might leave!", "They might call me a disgusting pig!" (Yeah, thanx for THAT one, moronic unnamed poster!)
Yes, society is doing EVERYTHING it can to de-nut us. Now, you either hitch 'em up, and wade into the fight, or concede that your SONS will be even more fully neutered.
The stakes are very different between a pickup baseball game and the custody of a child.
Well, of course. I think that's a given. My point is that if we dwell on the what ifs and the could bes and all the what might happens then we'd never do anything.
Again back to athletics...when I step on the throwing field or in a powerlifting meet, I know that there are those out there that are going to out throw me or out lift me. However, I step into the arena that I am going to dominate, that I am going to my absolute best, and that I will not waver.
If we all dwelled on the could happens we'd never have children, never get married, and never date.
I don't think it's wrong to not have children. I don't think it's wrong to not marry. But I don't understand telling others (as you have) not to have children because X and Y might happen.
Sorry I've been away from my own hornet's-nest-kicked-over thread for almost a day, but - GREAT CAESAR'S GHOST - the only two posters assiduously telling men to stand up and act like men appear to be KT, and M/L !!!!! (HHH is darting around throwing odd quips, so can't be put down to either side.)
lol, thanks. I'm more than okay to be thrown into being grouped with Melody Lane. She's aight in my book.
All this might happen stuff leaving one paralyzed to make decisions I don't understand. I had a vasectomy so I wouldn't have any more children. However, I realize that if I have sex with my wife there is the possibility I might have another child. I'm certainly not giving up sex because I might have a child.
Sorry I've been away from my own hornet's-nest-kicked-over thread for almost a day, but - GREAT CAESAR'S GHOST - the only two posters assiduously telling men to stand up and act like men appear to be KT, and M/L !!!!! (HHH is darting around throwing odd quips, so can't be put down to either side.)
GUYS,YOU ARE THE **edit** PROBLEM ! "I won't fight if I can't win!", "But she might leave!", "They might call me a disgusting pig!" (Yeah, thanx for THAT one, moronic unnamed poster!)
Yes, society is doing EVERYTHING it can to de-nut us. Now, you either hitch 'em up, and wade into the fight, or concede that your SONS will be even more fully neutered.
I fully admit to doing some devil's advocate play.
lol, thanks. I'm more than okay to be thrown into being grouped with Melody Lane. She's aight in my book.
Thankee. I think y'all boys oughta start paying me commission for my defense of your wimpier brethern....
Quote
All this might happen stuff leaving one paralyzed to make decisions I don't understand.
Agree. Living a life paralyzed with fear is not living.. I am in sales. We win and lose every day. If I laid down and died every time I lost, I would never win. A winner gets up and fights every day and never backs down from a battle. A person who never fights because he "might lose" chooses to lose.
�A coward dies a thousand deaths... a soldier dies but once.�
A winner fights the battle on his terms. A winner is smart enough to know not to get into fights that are seldom winnable.
If anyone has taken what I've said to mean NEVER fight, then you need to go back to anyone who taught you to read and ask for an apology. I've clearly said that it's folly to fight the battle on the terms dictated by society. However, I've also said to shape the battlefield to fight on the terms most advantageous.
I've clearly said that it's folly to fight the battle on the terms dictated by society. However, I've also said to shape the battlefield to fight on the terms most advantageous.
If you play the "game" by your soon-to-be ex-whatever's rules....you're going to lose...guaranteed.
EE says that *IF* you are going to fight them over anything (especially custody)...you need to change the rules of the game to your advantage...you need to change the "landscape" of the battlefield to suit you.
When they say "all is fair in love and war" it especially goes for war...which is what some custody battles are, from what I know.
Everything is fair game in a fight. You can't be afraid to do whatever is necessary to win.
Was watching "The Deerhunter" last night...and the last bit of discussion made me think of it.
When "Mike" and "Nikki" were POW's and playing Russian Roulette....Mike knew what he had to do in order to have a chance at survival: he had to get more bullets in the gun. He had to change the rules of the game, and change the battlefield to give him an advantage. He use psychological warfare to distract (all his laughing).
He had no fear when it came to doing what was necessary in order to have the opportunity to escape.
And when the opportunity came about...he acted swiftly and devastatingly.
I too have read Sun Tzu...amazing stuff....and you really can apply his teachings to many aspects of life.
So if you're going to fight...for whatever it may be in life....fight to win. Do what it takes, because if you don't, you won't.
Well, you avoid fights where the odds are against you. So instead of fighting in the courts, where one is likely to lose, take the fight to where it counts, with your child.
BE the better parent, regardless what the courts decide. In the long run, your child will see that you are the one they can count on, not the wayward wife. You are the one who keeps his word, who is to be modeled, etc.
My job is to be a great father, not a winner in the court room. Save your time and energy for being a great father when you do have the chance.
Second, win the fight before it ever gets to the court room. Be a great husband and father. Choose wisely. Don't rescue anyone. If someone can't take care of themselves, then you don't want them as your spouse. Because if they are looking for a way out of a situation, then it's possible that you'll be the situation they are trying to escape later.
Choose someone who brings as much to the table as you do. Choose someone who has a history of not quitting. Someone who doesn't play silly games. If there is drama in their life, pretty soon, they'll be the drama you don't want in your life.
Protect yourself in advance. Get a pre-nup that says the unfaithful party or the one who simply walks out when there is no marital misconduct gets nothing but their clothes. This is different from a pre-nup that protects your wealth. If someone will not sign one of these, then they are saying that they don't trust themselves not to cheat or to bail on the marriage.
Don't date cheaters or folks who just left their spouses. If they don't believe marriage is for life and being unhappy is a valid reason to them for leaving, then it's pointless to date them.
The battle to win is with your child, it's before you marry.
Don't bother fighting with cheaters. Society doesn't care if they were cheaters, and in many cases, they'll blame you for the cheaters cheating anyway.
If at all possible, don't have kids. It's not the kid's fault mom is a cheat or doesn't believe that marriage is for life. But it will break both your hearts if she comes to that conclusion, so if you haven't already had kids, avoid it.
If you feel the need to pass along your views, volunteer with kids who don't have a good mom or dad, teach Sunday school, be a big brother or big sister, volunteer at your local school, spend a week helping at a camp for kids. You'll have as much time if not more than you would with kids you get to see EOW and maybe on Wednesdays.
If anyone asks you why you are not married or don't have kids, tell them that until the system is fixed, until women stop choosing divorce 2 to 3 times more often than men, until the myth that men are cheats and women are victims are all done away with, until fathers are presumed as good of parents as mothers, until marital unfaithfulness is considered an attribute associated with an unfit parent, you don't care to participate in that system.
Fighting the courts is only fighting the symptoms. The problem is not the courts, it's the attitudes that allow someone to cheat and then think they are a fit parent. The problem is folks who just decide they are not happy and they are going to end their marriage, regardless what their spouse thinks or feels, ignoring what it will do to children.
The best way to fight against that is for the best and brightest, the most desirable men to say they will not participate any longer in that arrangement.
That's the fight I'm fighting.
I'm winning my child's heart and mind over to the idea that this father knows best, and is looking out for her best interests in every decision I make. I'm teaching her that she cannot treat men they way her mother treated me. When the day comes and she chooses to marry, I'll tell the both of them that once they marry, my support goes to the marriage. If my daughter cheats on him, he's always welcome in my home, she's welcome, but an affair partner, even if they ultimately become a spouse will never be welcome in my home.
Wanna really win, then don't tolerate the adultery nonsense. Don't watch it on TV, don't buy books that promote adultery, don't vote for candidates that tolerate it, or practice it. Don't reward adulterers with your time or treasure.
If your friends are cheating, you need new friends. If you have a family member who cheats, they no longer need to be invited to your home. If your mother cheated on your father, make sure she knows it's unacceptable. If she's married to her affair partner, make sure she knows he can't come to your home and as long as he's in hers, you won't visit her when he's around.
You win by living well and practice zero tolerance for those who cheat their vows by having an affair or otherwise discarding a spouse who never committed marital misconduct.
The fight wasn't with my ex-wife. It's with a society that all but celebrates infidelity. It's with parents that have affair partners in their homes instead of rallying around betrayed spouses.
The courts just reflect what's going on in society. So if you really want to win, you have to change society.
Don't attend churches that are soft on adultery and frivolous divorce is another example. I fired my pastor after he tried to blame me for my ex-wife's affair. If your pastor is telling you men are walking out of their families and not committed to family, you need to educate him that it's women by a factor of 2 to 3 who are the ones ending marriage. If he's still blaming men, explain to him that he's fired as your spiritual leader. As long as he's going to buy the lie from the pit of hell that men are the problem and women are victims, then he has no place being your spiritual leader or guide.
If your church will not confront a wayward wife in accordance with the process spelled out in Matthew 18, then it's time to fire that church and find one that will follow scripture when it comes to a member who will not end his/her sinful behavior.
I'm sure there are more, but the bottom line is zero tolerance for the nonsense we live with today.
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Originally Posted by Enlightened_Ex
I've clearly said that it's folly to fight the battle on the terms dictated by society. However, I've also said to shape the battlefield to fight on the terms most advantageous.
If anyone has taken what I've said to mean NEVER fight, then you need to go back to anyone who taught you to read and ask for an apology.
Well before I tried to find Mrs. Terry, my second grade teacher, I DID recheck your "avoid at all costs" pronouncements:
Or that fighting and making a point makes no difference in most cases....I fought. I exposed the afffair. I sought custody. Yet I still ended up divorced and a visitor dad....Why fight when your own pastor blames you for your wife's affair? When your state supreme court rules infidelity has no bearing on custody?....So I simply finished the nutering(sic) so I have no more kids and live my life. I tried to enlist help for my fight and was left alone to lose....Why bother?...If at all possible, don't have kids.
Well, on the face of it I'm still gonna lean on the side of "no-fight, no-way" as the tenor of your composition. So, I guess my reading ability might, after all, be acceptable. Now, shall we discuss your ability to have your written words reflect what it is, in retrospect, you wanted to say?
Yeah, it hurts to fight and lose. But sometimes there is victory in the FIGHT. Google "HMS Jervis Bay", "Rorke's Drift", or "Taffy III".
It is obvious to me that the pain that EE suffered over doing all the right things and STILL losing custody to his wayward wife will ALWAYS (and understandably so) affect his perspective.
To him, the pain of losing his daughter (being allocated only every other weekend, and sometimes Wed. nights) when he did NOTHING but fight for his marriage, AND for his wife, has got to be enormous.
The fact that people are making this about whether or not you fight in general is ridiculous.
He followed all the MB principles, lost not only his wife, but his DAUGHTER.
His considerations are valid. He is not saying don't follow MB. He is saying that right now, the courts are slanted against men--even men who have done NOTHING WRONG. So keep that in mind.
The pain of losing so much in terms of time with your child, when your spouse is the one who cheated and walked out on the marriage (even though you tried DESPERATELY to save it) has got to be excruciating.
Let's all remember that his views come from REAL LIFE suffering and pain. He is not talking theoretical nonsense about whether or not all fighting is valid. He is saying that the pain from losing rights to your child is SO GREAT that you should avoid putting yourself in that position to begin with, if possible.
I may not personally agree, but I certainly understand where he is coming from. And I think all the things he suggests you look for in a possible future spouse are wise things.
Telly, I appreciate your post. I think sometimes when we feel strongly about a belief or a method or an approach, then we take personally any situation that does not "fit," so we attack the situation. The idea that we believe so strongly in X and X didn't fix something does not compute.
EE, I cannot even begin to imagine what you have been through. And it sounds like you did everything "right" (I will refrain from my opinion on the idea that there is one "right" that fits every person on the planet sometimes). And......it didn't work. We can spin it, argue, throw around pretty confetti. But in your sitch.....it didn't work. In your shoes, I might feel the same way about ever ever stepping into the ring again.
A person not wanting to fight the same fight they lost AGAIN doesn't have anything to do with maleness.....it has to do with being human. We all do it. I will not be sharing anything about my SF life, and EE will not be having more kids or advising others to do so. You get burned......and you learn.
He followed all the MB principles, lost not only his wife, but his DAUGHTER. Let's all remember that his views come from REAL LIFE suffering and pain. He is not talking theoretical nonsense about whether or not all fighting is valid. He is saying that the pain from losing rights to your child is SO GREAT that you should avoid putting yourself in that position to begin with, if possible.
I may not personally agree, but I certainly understand where he is coming from. And I think all the things he suggests you look for in a possible future spouse are wise things.
"Theoretical nonsense" my hind end. You have no idea what you are even talking about. This has nothing to do with any "theory," because Marriage Builders doesn't address divorce. And of course the issue is whether or not fighting is "valid;" we can read his comments. This is all about experiences we have seen on this board over the years.. We know that the fight is hard, but we also know many guys on this forum who have fought and WON. So, don't tell us about "theoretical nonsense" when we have men such as Eph525 and Mortarman, among many others, who have fought and WON. Are the men who fought and won "theoretical nonsense?" Shall we ask them? Or their children?
No one misunderstands the situation here, Telly, except you. We just have a broader vision than you because we have seen both sides. So who is talking nonsense?
And I hope you are not blaming Marriage Builders for the loss of his family? It sure does sound like it. If that is what you are saying, how about backing that up?
Of course it is always good to do everything to avoid this in the first place. But I assure you most everyone in these situations never believed it would happen to them. Hindsight and all that........
Or that fighting and making a point makes no difference in most cases....I fought. I exposed the afffair. I sought custody. Yet I still ended up divorced and a visitor dad....Why fight when your own pastor blames you for your wife's affair? When your state supreme court rules infidelity has no bearing on custody?....So I simply finished the nutering(sic) so I have no more kids and live my life. I tried to enlist help for my fight and was left alone to lose....Why bother?...If at all possible, don't have kids.
Well, you avoid fights where the odds are against you. So instead of fighting in the courts, where one is likely to lose, take the fight to where it counts, with your child.
You know, it hurts to fight and lose. We all know that. But losing is GUARANTEED if a person doesn't fight. So it makes no sense to come on a board where men are under attack and tell them fighting is of no avail.[which is not true] Unless you want the same thing for them. If the above is your way of "encouraging" one to fight, EE, I assure you that your message was LOST. While winning is no guarantee, losing is guaranteed if one doesn't fight.
My post was referring more to the neglect and denial that takes place on a day to day basis - way before an affair and/or divorce come into play.
My experience has been with men who reject any sort of structure or professional input. They are of the mindset that relationships should just unfold naturally and that the way it is, is the way it is.
They were okay with the way they viewed the world, and the suggestion that improvements were possible and necessary was flat out rejected.
I was told by my ex-husband that he wanted to be accepted as he was and that he was not going to promise that anything would change if we stayed married.
I was told by the man I've recently been seeing that he knew he had a problem, but after years of trying to sort it out himself, he was now content living 'as is' - with absolutely no regard or concern to how it was affecting those around him.
So, when I speak of 'fighting', it's more of an openness to see and acknowledge the reality of what's going on and a willingness to grow and change.
It's the difference between being 'awake' and making decisions and choices in a purposeful way, rather than 'sleeping' one's way through life on autopilot.
It's the difference between being 'awake' and making decisions and choices in a purposeful way, rather than 'sleeping' one's way through life on autopilot.
This is good......and there is definitely more than one way to be "asleep."
Isabeau, what you describe is called a "freeloaders" mentality by Dr Harley. And it plagues just as many women as it does men. There are 3 kinds of people in relationships, buyers, renters and freeloaders. The key is to find someone who is a buyer when you choose a marriage partner.
Freeloader is unwilling to put much effort into the care of his or her partner in a romantic relationship. He or she does only what comes naturally and expects only what comes naturally. It's like a person who tries to live in a house without paying rent or doing anything to improve it unless the person is in the mood to do so.
Renter is willing to provide limited care as long as it's in his or her best interest. The romantic relationship is considered tentative, so the care is viewed as short-term. It's like a person who rents a house and is willing to stay as long as the conditions seem fair, or until he or she finds something better. The person is willing to pay reasonable rent and keep the house clean but is not willing to make repairs or improvements. It's the landlord's job to keep the place attractive enough for the renter to stay and continue paying rent.
Buyer is willing to demonstrate an extraordinary sense of care by making permanent changes in his or her own behavior and lifestyle to make the romantic relationship mutually fulfilling. Solutions to problems are long-term solutions and must work well for both partners because the romantic relationship is viewed as exclusive and permanent. It's like a person who buys a house for life with a willingness to make repairs that accomodate changing needs, painting the walls, installing new carpet, replacing the roof, and even doing some remodeling so that it can be comfortable and useful.
Isabeau, what you describe is called a "freeloaders" mentality by Dr Harley. And it plagues just as many women as it does men. There are 3 kinds of people in relationships, buyers, renters and freeloaders. The key is to find someone who is a buyer when you choose a marriage partner.
I ordered the book, and it should be coming next week.
I understand that just as many women are guilty. I'm simply speaking from my own experience.
I would use MB if my husband were unfaithful. I would (and do) urge anyone to use it. I believe in fighting for relationships, and feel that the reward can be worth the risk.
My only point is that someone who has been hurt as badly by the courts as EE has might have a different view, and arguing it doesn't make sense. He is not going to change his view.
Arguing with people when their position comes from pain (in this case, the pain of having your child wrongly taken from you) doesn't make sense to me. I think gently acknowledging their pain is a better way to go. Then advocating for MB itself shines vs. being tarnished by what feels (to me) like attacking someone who has been victimized (in this case, by the courts).
But that's just me, and more of my "nonsense", I guess. lol!
My only point is that someone who has been hurt as badly by the courts as EE has might have a different view, and arguing it doesn't make sense. He is not going to change his view.
I'm going to weigh in here with a slightly different perspective.
When I came to MB upon learning of my (now ex-)WW's affair, I had already spent a couple of weeks working "Plan Fred."
The veteran posters here not only helped open my eyes to what was going on in my life, but to the nature of my WW as well.
Thanks to MB, I fought. At first, I fought to save my marriage. But it soon became a fight to save my self-respect. So, even though I lost the battle, I won the war. At least, that's how I look at it.
I tend to agree with MelodyLane: Had I not fought, I'd still be in the position I'm in today. But because I gave it my best effort, I feel a whole lot better about it.
My only point is that someone who has been hurt as badly by the courts as EE has might have a different view, and arguing it doesn't make sense. He is not going to change his view.
But that's just me, and more of my "nonsense", I guess. lol!
I disagree it doesn't make sense to present the other side and, frankly, expected a more reasoned response from you. It's one thing to dismiss opinions you don't like as "theoretical nonsense" but it's quite another to defend that stance. And you couldn't do that. It doesn't make sense to NOT present the other side. If the other side is not presented, that men can and do win, then folks who don't know any better might just give up without trying. Nothing "theoretical" about that, is there?
I like what Fred said. It is a very realistic and real world kind of perspective. He found a plan; he worked that plan and fought like heck. he didn't end up with a restored M or things exactly like he wanted......but he did retain his self-respect, and he can look back knowing he fought the good fight. I think that is the perfect perspective, actually. Because we can't say no one ever wins.....and no, we can't say that everyone wins, or that everyone who doesn't win "must not have done it right." Some fights are just good fights. Mental illness will always have a stigma, there will always be people who assume public schools are evil, Roe vs. Wade will probably never be overturned....but that doesn't mean I can't keep working on them
I'm not saying don't fight back... Or advocate for it. Or push people to fight.
I don't disagree with telling people to "fight for their marriage". Not at all!
I'm a fighter, and I have fought for many a relationship in my life, and will continue to do so.
I'm saying why do it in the context of arguing WITH someone who is clearly still in as much pain as EE...? His fight is over. He lost. He's hurting.
By all means, take the position that people should fight for their marriage! (I happen to feel the same). But say your piece and let him say his, and don't try to get him to defend what is clearly born out of pain... (So much pain in his posts. So much loss. It truly breaks my heart)
By all means, encourage people to fight the good fight!
It is my opinion (reasoned according to anyone else's standards or not) that people will take advice to fight just as well without anyone having to declare "victory" over EE, for heaven's sake. It's like trying to trample on a casualty of war who is still bleeding out.
Suggestion, Telly: if you are going to dismiss people's views as "theoretical nonsense" why not have the intellectual integrity to back up your position? Positions that are asserted without substantiation can be dismissed the same.
Just because you have sympathy for someone does not excuse you from having to use reason and intelligence in your positions. Everyone has sympathy for EE, it doesn't mean we can make unreasoned assertions and expect to be taken seriously.
It is my opinion (reasoned according to anyone else's standards or not) that people will take advice to fight just as well without anyone having to declare "victory" over EE, for heaven's sake. It's like trying to trample on a casualty of war who is still bleeding out.
Huh? I don't see anyone trampling over anyone on this thread. I do see another pattern though.
It's the difference between being 'awake' and making decisions and choices in a purposeful way, rather than 'sleeping' one's way through life on autopilot.
This is good......and there is definitely more than one way to be "asleep."
I have slept at various times in my life. I have done the autopilot thing, which didn't work. Then I kind of beat my conscience into sleep and made terrible choices. Then I sort of tried the "sir,yes sir!" mode of sleep. One thing was common about all three -- I wasn't thinking. God gave me a brain....and instead of using it I put it on a shelf.
Dr. Seuss' birthday was this week (my teacher-ness is coming out ). One of my favorite of his books is Hooray for Diffendoofer Day. In it, a great imaginative creative school is told that they have to take a test, and if they fail it, they will have to go to a school in horrible Flobbertown (a sad, empty gray place where "everyone does everything the same") Mr. Flibber encourages them not to lose heart. She tells them that they'll be able to answer every question because:
"We've taught you that the world is round, And red and white make pink; And something else that matters MORE: We've taught you HOW TO THINK!"
Anytime we just.....do without thinking, whether it's on autopilot or an impulsive wayward following their feelings, or even a teenager trying to "follow the crowd"......we are asleep.
Anytime we just.....do without thinking, whether it's on autopilot or an impulsive wayward following their feelings, or even a teenager trying to "follow the crowd"......we are asleep.
I very much agree with this. If a person can't explain their position using reason and logic, it means they used none when coming to their own position. Asserting a postion on the basis of a sympathetic feeling would be such an example of not thinking. Asleep at the wheel....
The best decisions I have ever made have been the result of wise counsel, empathy, and personal intellect. And time I cast aside one of those....not so much.
The best decisions I have ever made have been the result of wise counsel, empathy, and personal intellect. And time I cast aside one of those....not so much.
Agree. And the absolute WORST conclusions I have ever made were based on feelings, rather than thinking. Feelings have no intellect. When a person can't back up their position, it is a sign they used feelings rather than intellect.
I have slept at various times in my life. I have done the autopilot thing, which didn't work. Then I kind of beat my conscience into sleep and made terrible choices. Then I sort of tried the "sir,yes sir!" mode of sleep. One thing was common about all three -- I wasn't thinking. God gave me a brain....and instead of using it I put it on a shelf.
Dr. Seuss' birthday was this week (my teacher-ness is coming out ). One of my favorite of his books is Hooray for Diffendoofer Day. In it, a great imaginative creative school is told that they have to take a test, and if they fail it, they will have to go to a school in horrible Flobbertown (a sad, empty gray place where "everyone does everything the same") Mr. Flibber encourages them not to lose heart. She tells them that they'll be able to answer every question because:
"We've taught you that the world is round, And red and white make pink; And something else that matters MORE: We've taught you HOW TO THINK!"
Anytime we just.....do without thinking, whether it's on autopilot or an impulsive wayward following their feelings, or even a teenager trying to "follow the crowd"......we are asleep.
I agree, a teenager "following the crowd" can have serious repercussions. Thankfully, most of the people that show up at Marriage Builders are adults and can think for themselves.
I was brought up in a very strict Christian home. My dad was a pastor and around our house it was usually his way or the highway. I rebelled as a teenager because I chose to follow the crowd. What I didn't realize until much later in life is that although my dad's delivery may have been harsh and stern, his message was the truth.
Around here (at MB), we're gonna hit newbies betrayed spouses hard with the MB message because they ARE desperate and hurting. The intent is to apply CPR, stop the bleeding and then minister to the wound. Someone coming into ER severely wounded can't really think clearly.
When an active wayward shows up, we'll do the same for them. Clearly, their best thinking doesn't serve them well.
EE has been around for awhile. Yes, he speaks from a position of hurt and pain, who wouldn't in his shoes? But it would be a disservice to those who come behind him and read this thread to only hear his message. This is Marriage Builders after all.
I'm beginning to wonder though if this thread should really be under Marriage Builders 101, because it's clearly not about that anymore.
And the absolute WORST conclusions I have ever made were based on feelings, rather than thinking. Feelings have no intellect. When a person can't back up their position, it is a sign they used feelings rather than their mind.
This SO reminds me of the line used by treatment center counselors when dealing with over-dramatic patients
I was very blessed. My dad raised us in a very Bible based home. And he had very high standards. He was a coach and then head of a PE department......and then he had this....girly girl with hormones and feelings and right brain-itis. But I look back, and no matter how "dramatic" I became, he always had this....amazing way of gathering me up into safety and telling me the truth, all at the same time. I don't know if it was all those years as a teacher or just his personality. But he is still a hero to me. And it must have worked with mom too, because in July they will have been madly in love married for 50 years. They rock.
I don't know where that came from. Mom just called this weekend and told me that she wanted me to do an oil painting for their dining room for an anniversary present, so I guess I'm sentimental. My wish would be that everyone who comes here struggling and in pain could have what they have.
OH MY GOSH, how bizarre that we were both thinking of our fathers! Seriously. My father was a very corrupt, wayward atheist and he used to tell me how stupid Christians were. He claimed they were stupid for believing the Bible and only did so because they weren't bright/creative/intelligent enough to come up with their own philosophies. Gullible "sheep," he called them, "followers." [ironically, the people who claim this are doing nothing more parroting a tired old bumper sticker so they violate their very premise with this argument - they reveal they are sheeple with this argument ]
It took me several years to figure out that his premise only made sense if the person has more wisdom than the philosophy being dismissed. His logic was very flawed. Dismissing wisdom only on the basis that it was not personally derived reflects a distinct LACK of wisdom. Only a fool would do that. Or a lazy thinker.
How ironic that we were both thinking of our fathers...
I was blessed too. Although my dad was stern and harsh at times, I could still wrap him around my little finger when I was growing up. It KILLED him to see me cry because I was his "princess". We were extremely close (until I hit my teens, lol). Of the three of us, I was the spoiled one.
I look back at the time I rebelled and it makes me so sad that I hurt and disappointed him like that, knowing that he loved me as much as he did. Thankfully, before he died (at the age of 53), our relationship was mended and he knew I would be okay. If he had lived, I hate to think what he would have done to my DH when DH went off the rails. That would not have been pretty.
I love my parents. Things weren't always great growing up, but I love them dearly and I thank them for many things I've learned.
One of the things I learned was that I didn't have to gas-light, take things out of context, or try to humiliate other people in order to make my point.
I am so so so grateful that I don't need to take anything away from someone else's experience of the truth in order to establish my own. Speaking truth doesn't mean beating other people over the head with it. It doesn't mean calling them names, insulting them, misrepresenting them, or ganging up on them.
For example, on this thread, I've PERSONALLY been accused of speaking nonsense... Of not understanding anything... Of not using reason or intelligence. And of not having intellectual integrity.
I could respond in kind (which I haven't, and which I won't). I could keep trying to explain what I don't think I can say more plainly (I agree people should fight for their marriage; I support MB and think it should be articulated often. HOW this is done is the only point of debate I intended to make).
For example, on this thread, I've PERSONALLY been accused of speaking nonsense...
Yep, I know the feeling!
Quote
For example, on this thread, I've PERSONALLY been accused of speaking nonsense... Of not understanding anything... Of not using reason or intelligence. And of not having intellectual integrity.
Wouldn't you agree that is the case when one makes assertions with absolutely no substantiation? Dismissing the arguments of others as "theoretical nonsense" with no substantiation is a demonstration of not using reason or intelligence. If you don't want folks to point that out, then maybe you shouldn't do such things. Just a suggestion.... When you call the arguments of others "theoretical nonsense" you should be prepared to defend your insulting assertion. Which you have failed to do.
![[Linked Image from media2.intoday.in]](http://media2.intoday.in/cosmo/images//stories/cosmo/November/081114075811_gay_200.jpg)
![[Linked Image from smileys.smileycentral.com]](http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_12_6.gif)
He really hurt me and my brothers and sisters by teaching us that wrong is right. He wasnt just corrupt in his relationships but in all aspects of life.
That characterization drives me insane because it says that women are weak and silly and dependent upon MEN to give them liberty, jobs, whatever. If they are that weak, then they can't very well claim to be EQUAL. I would suggest that weakness is your problem and not men if your equality is contingent upon being given something by a man. Men didn't need permission to be free so I don't know why these silly broads did. ![[Linked Image from clicksmilies.com]](http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/travesmilies/smilie_koffer.gif)