pregnant 17 year old

alath wrote:
It's fairly likely that his wife, having given up after long dealing with the
kind of intransigence and defensiveness that we're dealing with, is going about
the situation in her way unilaterally.

I wonder what the wife is like. Chris has shown his true colors here,
quite clearly. Maybe the wife has no grasp or concept of adult
relationships either - it would go a long way towards explaining her
choice of a husband.

Either way, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Even one "partner"
like Chris in a marriage would spell its doom.

It's so interesting to watch this thread. What Chris describes is not a
foriegn or difficult point of view. I think Nan described this best
where she stated that Chris' point of view stems from a patriarchy
social structure. I, for one, participate in this structure and can
relate to Chris' dilemma. And before you go about insulting people who
share this point of view, just remember that we have a lower divorce
rate than you people and your "adult relationships".

Regards...

wrote in message
ups.com...
alath wrote:
It's fairly likely that his wife, having given up after long dealing
with the
kind of intransigence and defensiveness that we're dealing with, is
going about
the situation in her way unilaterally.

I wonder what the wife is like. Chris has shown his true colors here,
quite clearly. Maybe the wife has no grasp or concept of adult
relationships either - it would go a long way towards explaining her
choice of a husband.

Either way, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Even one "partner"
like Chris in a marriage would spell its doom.

It's so interesting to watch this thread. What Chris describes is not a
foriegn or difficult point of view. I think Nan described this best
where she stated that Chris' point of view stems from a patriarchy
social structure. I, for one, participate in this structure and can
relate to Chris' dilemma. And before you go about insulting people who
share this point of view, just remember that we have a lower divorce
rate than you people and your "adult relationships".

So, sorry, you're just wrong. "We people" with our "adult relationships"
don't divorce any more often than "you people", and possibly divorce
slightly less often. Studies have shown that people who belong to
evangelical or fundamentalist churches which stress the sanctity of marriage
and the evils of divorce, and adhere to the patriarchal family structure
have just as high or higher rates of divorce as people who have more
egalitarian models of marriage and family.

That doesn't prove the patriarchal model of marriage is WRONG, mind you.
It's drive me nuts, but you aren't MY husband (and I think we're both glad
of that!). If you and your wife are both happy with it, more power to you.

But Chris' wife is apparently NOT happy with it, and THAT'S why his marriage
is "hanging by a thread" (if, indeed, he's for real and not just stirring
the pot). That doesn't make HIM wrong, either, but it might make him "not
right" for his wife.
--
Be well, Barbara

Circe wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
alath wrote:
It's fairly likely that his wife, having given up after long dealing
with the
kind of intransigence and defensiveness that we're dealing with, is
going about
the situation in her way unilaterally.

I wonder what the wife is like. Chris has shown his true colors here,
quite clearly. Maybe the wife has no grasp or concept of adult
relationships either - it would go a long way towards explaining her
choice of a husband.

Either way, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Even one "partner"
like Chris in a marriage would spell its doom.

It's so interesting to watch this thread. What Chris describes is not a
foriegn or difficult point of view. I think Nan described this best
where she stated that Chris' point of view stems from a patriarchy
social structure. I, for one, participate in this structure and can
relate to Chris' dilemma. And before you go about insulting people who
share this point of view, just remember that we have a lower divorce
rate than you people and your "adult relationships".

So, sorry, you're just wrong. "We people" with our "adult relationships"
don't divorce any more often than "you people", and possibly divorce
slightly less often. Studies have shown that people who belong to
evangelical or fundamentalist churches which stress the sanctity of marriage
and the evils of divorce, and adhere to the patriarchal family structure
have just as high or higher rates of divorce as people who have more
egalitarian models of marriage and family.

Although I find the Barna Group statistics fascinating, I don't believe
in their validity because I think some factors, such as the fact that
Christians marry more than non-Christians in the US, are not taken into
consideration.

Also, you have to look into societies in which patriarchy is the
primary social structure and compare their divorce rates with those of
Westernized (feministic) cultures.

But Chris' wife is apparently NOT happy with it, and THAT'S why his marriage
is "hanging by a thread". That doesn't make HIM wrong, either, but it might
make him "not
right" for his wife.

I actually have to agree with you on this point. I don't think his wife
agreed to the god, spouse, child, family order of things or if she did,
she must have changed her mind. I, personally, wouldn't have married a
single mom.

Be well, Barbara

Regards...

Chris and agsf are misrepresenting Christianity here. I am a
conservative Christian myself, and our church does teach that the
husband/father is the spritual leader of the family. But that does not
translate into the father being tyrannical self-centered jerk. If one
is really a Christian, one has made a committment to serve others
including first and foremost one's family. This means putting the needs
of one's wife and children above one's own needs. If one is a real
Christian, leadership means service to others and Christ himself was a
model in this regard. Chris and agsf are promoting some kind of selfish
"everyone is a slave to daddy" crap which may be patriarchal but
certainly doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.

"alath" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chris and agsf are misrepresenting Christianity here. I am a
conservative Christian myself, and our church does teach that the
husband/father is the spritual leader of the family. But that does not
translate into the father being tyrannical self-centered jerk. If one
is really a Christian, one has made a committment to serve others
including first and foremost one's family. This means putting the needs
of one's wife and children above one's own needs. If one is a real
Christian, leadership means service to others and Christ himself was a
model in this regard. Chris and agsf are promoting some kind of selfish
"everyone is a slave to daddy" crap which may be patriarchal but
certainly doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.

Thank you. That was well put. I apologize in that I may well have been the
one to characterize conservative Christians as being more likely to
subscribe to a "patriarchal" family model. I think that's true, but I think
that many (if not most) conservative Christians believe that the father is
the leader of the family exactly as you describe.

Incidentally, I must observe that "unfeminized" countries with low divorce
rates also tend to have at least one of the following characteristics (and
usually more than one):

* High poverty rate
* Autocratic, dictatorial governments
* Corrupt or unjust judicial systems, combined with extreme forms of
punishment
* Little or no freedom of either press or religious exercise
* Both cultural and legal restrictions on personal freedom (e.g., arranged
marriages, legally prescribed beard-wearing for men, etc.)

Seems to me there are an awful lot of benefits to "feminized" societies
(higher standards of living, democracy, and much greater personal freedom).
It may well be that one of the prices we pay for those benefits is a higher
divorce rate. But it's a price I think MOST of us are probably willing to
pay (especially since each ONE of us is ultimately responsible for our OWN
divorce rate--mine's still 0% and holding steady!).
--
Be well, Barbara

alath wrote:
Chris and agsf are misrepresenting Christianity here.

For the record, I never stated that I represented Christianity or it's
view points.

Regards...

Circe wrote:

Incidentally, I must observe that "unfeminized" countries with low divorce
rates also tend to have at least one of the following characteristics (and
usually more than one):

* High poverty rate
* Autocratic, dictatorial governments
* Corrupt or unjust judicial systems, combined with extreme forms of
punishment
* Little or no freedom of either press or religious exercise
* Both cultural and legal restrictions on personal freedom (e.g., arranged
marriages, legally prescribed beard-wearing for men, etc.)

Fascinating observation. The US, prior to the 1960's, does not
represent the above, neither does modern day Japan. And if you are
attacking countries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, India
(actually they're doing well), then you will need to sit down and look
at those societies and wonder why they have a strong family structure
and if their way of life is really restricted or not.

Seems to me there are an awful lot of benefits to "feminized" societies
(higher standards of living,

"Higher standards of living"??? Yes, single moms who raise godless
children contribute to "higher standards of living".

democracy,

We didn't have democracy before?

and much greater personal freedom).

Really? You're just full of it today.

It may well be that one of the prices we pay for those benefits is a higher
divorce rate. But it's a price I think MOST of us are probably willing to
pay (especially since each ONE of us is ultimately responsible for our OWN
divorce rate--mine's still 0% and holding steady!).

Try focusing on the family and not on the individual. After all, it's
family that builds a strong foundation of society.

--
Be well, Barbara

Regards...

I ALMOST MADE IT TO POPE!

(Just kidding.)

See below.

Alath wrote:

"Chris and agsf are misrepresenting Christianity here. I am a
conservative Christian myself, and our church does teach that the
husband/father is the spritual leader of the family. But that does not
translate into the father being tyrannical self-centered jerk. If one
is really a Christian, one has made a committment to serve others
including first and foremost one's family. This means putting the needs
of one's wife and children above one's own needs. If one is a real
Christian, leadership means service to others and Christ himself was a
model in this regard. Chris and agsf are promoting some kind of selfish
"everyone is a slave to daddy" crap which may be patriarchal but
certainly doesn't have anything to do with Christianity."

AGSF replied:

"For the record, I never stated that I represented Christianity or it's view
points."

Todd Gastaldo remarks:

By age 15 I think it was, I had been Born, Baptized, First Holy Communioned
and Confirmed Catholic (that's THREE Holy Sacraments)!

I thought I was on my way to becoming Pope! (Just kidding - but it will make
a good subject line.)

It wasn't until much later in life that I heard others saying that
Catholicism is not true Christianity. (One of my late mother's favorite
jokes involved a tour of heaven. At the Catholic floor, tourists were told
to be real quiet - "The Catholics think they are the only ones here.")

The Jehovah's Witness's who came to my house assured me that the Seventh Day
Adventists were a cult. (Maybe I have this backwards.)

All this religious finger pointing - and after reading the same book (or
versions thereof)!!

Last night on the radio, I heard a so-called Christian preacher running down
the Mormons - indicating they are not Christians - or not following the
Bible...

I don't really know who truly represents Christianity.

I am currently reading two books about Gnosticism:

The Laughing Jesus [2004]

The Gnostics [198_]

The Gnostics were apparently people who saw Christianity quite differently
and got hammered by the Catholics.

Gnostics called Cathars elevated both men and women to priest status
("Parfaits" and "Parfaites").

The Gnostic interpretation - so far as I can tell - is that Christ is all of
us - even non-Christians - and The Laughing Jesus [2004] points to
Gnosticism in VARIOUS faiths - a notion which makes sense if God is to make
sense - or so I say.

I'm not totally sold on Gnosticism - but the Gnostics point out HUGE flaws
in Catholicism (for example) - which is probably why Gnostics were called
"heretics" and killed by Catholics spurred on by Catholic clergymen.

BTW, it is fascinating to me that - by stumbling onto the phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology of American medical priests/MDs - I discovered
that MDs and Jewish mohelim are amputating far more infant foreskin than God
originally/allegedly commanded.

Religion sure makes for strange behavior toward human genitals!

Just thought I'd chime in.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Todd^^^

(^^^whose post is up to - perhaps over - 30% shorter than his usual posts -
perhaps because of his slowly growing knowledge of Gnosticism : )

PS One last note: AGNOSTICISM appears to me quite similar to GNOSTICISM.
Maybe there are Gnostics (or Agnostics) reading who know what I am talking
about and can immediately correct me?

"alath" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chris and agsf are misrepresenting Christianity here. I am a
conservative Christian myself, and our church does teach that the
husband/father is the spritual leader of the family. But that does not
translate into the father being tyrannical self-centered jerk. If one
is really a Christian, one has made a committment to serve others
including first and foremost one's family. This means putting the needs
of one's wife and children above one's own needs. If one is a real
Christian, leadership means service to others and Christ himself was a
model in this regard. Chris and agsf are promoting some kind of selfish
"everyone is a slave to daddy" crap

That's news to me.

which may be patriarchal but
certainly doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Circe wrote:
Incidentally, I must observe that "unfeminized" countries with low
divorce
rates also tend to have at least one of the following characteristics
(and
usually more than one):

* High poverty rate
* Autocratic, dictatorial governments
* Corrupt or unjust judicial systems, combined with extreme forms of
punishment
* Little or no freedom of either press or religious exercise
* Both cultural and legal restrictions on personal freedom (e.g.,
arranged
marriages, legally prescribed beard-wearing for men, etc.)

Fascinating observation. The US, prior to the 1960's, does not
represent the above,

Women got the franchise in the US in 1920; quite a number of states had
already extended the franchise to women well before then, however. Moreover,
women in the US were far more "liberated' in the 18th century than their
counterparts TODAY in most of the MIddle East and much of Africa.

neither does modern day Japan.

Japan is a notable exception in that it is both democratic and has a very
low divorce rate. It also, however, has a fairly low marriage rate along
with an exceptionally low birth rate (it has negative population growth at
this point) and both are falling. So, while it's possible that Japan will
always have a low divorce rate for cultural reasons, it doesn't look to me
like that's contributing to particularly healthy FAMILIES, at least from a
perspective of maintaining the current social structure.

And if you are
attacking countries

I'm not ATTACKING anyone. I'm simply pointing out that the better educated
and more enfranchised women are in a society, the better that society seems
to do financially and in respecting civil rights. There's not a perfect
one-to-one correlation.

The US is still a patriarchal society, BTW. For example, we have never even
had a serious female candidate for a president, while India had Indira
Ghandi as prime minister way back in 1966! And the first woman prime
minister was actually Siramavo Bandaranaike of Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, in
1960. Women have considerably more freedom in the US than in many other
parts of the world, but they've nowhere NEAR achieved parity with men when
it comes to political power.

like Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, India
(actually they're doing well),

If you believe all of these countries are doing well in ALL the categories I
listed above, you need a major reality check. I never said that extreme
patriarchy and ALL the ills I mentioned go together, but that you generally
see one or more of them in such countries. If you try to claim that Saudi
Arabia is a democracy with freedom of religious expression and the press or
that India doesn't have a high poverty rate, I shall have to laugh.

then you will need to sit down and look
at those societies and wonder why they have a strong family structure
and if their way of life is really restricted or not.

Honey, women in Saudi Arabia aren't allowed to drive or go out of their
homes without a male escort. Men are expected adhere to the state religion
(Wahhabism) and therefore must wear their beards at regulation length (one
fist below the chin), among other things. Both genders live in a country
without a functioning democracy or free press. That's a pretty darned
restricted life and, quite frankly, whether it contributes to a "strong
family structure" or not, I think most people who lived in what you term
"feminized" societies would be unwilling to trade their rights and freedoms
to get that kind of family structure.

Freedom comes with a price. One of the prices is that people who are free to
make their own decisions about their personal lives sometimes make bad
decisions. But the alternative--to be stuck with a bad decision someone ELSE
makes for you--is far worse!

Seems to me there are an awful lot of benefits to "feminized" societies
(higher standards of living,

"Higher standards of living"??? Yes, single moms who raise godless
children contribute to "higher standards of living".

Some married people raise "godless" children, too. (My husband and I are
Unitarian-Universalists, but we don't believe in "God" in the sense that any
of the major world's religions would recognize.) What has GODLESSNESS got to
do with poverty?

democracy,

We didn't have democracy before?

When this country started, no, we did not have democracy. Only landed white
men were permitted to vote. That's not a true democracy. That's not to say
it wasn't pretty radical at the time.

But until ALL adult citizens, male and female of all races, gained the right
to vote, the US did not, in fact, have a government that would today be
recognized as a legitimate democracy.

But it's not my claim that egalitarianism with respect to gender CREATES
democratic institutions and free societies. Rather, I believe that once
democratic institutions are in place and societies become "free" for male
citizens, more freedom for their female citizens and more egalitarian
societal structure overall naturally begin to evolve.

It may well be that one of the prices we pay for those benefits is a
higher
divorce rate. But it's a price I think MOST of us are probably willing to
pay (especially since each ONE of us is ultimately responsible for our
OWN
divorce rate--mine's still 0% and holding steady!).

Try focusing on the family and not on the individual. After all, it's
family that builds a strong foundation of society.

A family is made up of individuals. Individuals who, in our country, are
responsible for their own choices and behaviors.
--
Be well, Barbara