Conference quark::human_relations-v1

RE: .0

"Other reasons given for marriage include children, sex, romance, love and
companionship.  These are no longer as important now that women are more
sexually active outside of marriage and single/divorced women raise children on
their own."

*Woof*!  Can't say I can agree that they are no longer (as) important...

"DO YOU THINK THE FACT THAT MORE WOMEN ARE WORKING AND EDUCATED HAS CONTRIBUTED
TO THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES,..."

Yes, in a positive way; a Democracy is always harder to run...

Jim.

    Without going into the magazine-style questionnaire in .0, I would
    simply say that having a career has provided many women with options
    they would not otherwise have had... that a choice for marriage
    is just that, a choice... not a requirement.
    
    Marge

    I chose marriage for love, for a kind of love that can be found
    only in permanent committment and devotion to someone I know very
    well and hope to know better as we grow together.
    
    Sex outside of marriage and my ability to raise my children on my own
    has nothing to do with this kind of deep bonding.  And while I consider
    Neil my best friend, friendship in the traditional sense really has
    very little to do with this inexplicably mysterious and marvelous tie
    that binds us.  It's something that doesn't exist anywhere else, in any
    other relation. 
    
    --bonnie

    p.s.  Some of the questions and comments strike me as sexist -- for
    instance, that men aren't understanding enough to be counted as
    friends, that since we no longer need to marry for status or upkeep,
    there is no need to have anything to do with a man.  

    re: .4
    
    Life without the "other sex" has been tried, and is in force in
    the United States today. If Margaret Chase Smith (Formerly ?? from
    Maine); No military person would have sex with another person unless
    they were married to each other.
    
    The US penal system has dictated that inmates would forego ALL sexual
    pleasures with persons of the opposite sex while they are incarcerated.

    By default, the "Prigs and Moralists" would permit situations where
    only homosexual expierences would be viable (by default) because
    of the segregation of the US human race, as part of our US cultural
    "norms".
    
    To wit: Hostels run by the IYHF are segregated by sex; team sports
    are segregated; Work Ethics/Jobs are traditionally segregated; schools;
    and on and on and on ... it goes.
    
    I find your last paragraph to be sexist, in that you imply that
    Men need women in order to make life interesting for each other.

    This comment seems to leave out all other forms of friendships and
    relationships; so it appears sexist to me.
    

	To paraphrase a "feminist" - 
    "Men need a woman like a fish needs a bicycle".
    
    
    
        I find that (in my meagre personal experiences ); that the level
    of pain I've been given by *some* women; I often have wondered:
    WHy bother ? If I want this much pain and hurt all I have to do
    is put my <digit> in a vise, and turn the handle to close it !
    
    But, I have to admit, as much fun as it is to be my own person;
    and as much as I am able to do anything I like alone - it is all

    
    		    * SO MUCH MORE FUN* 
    
    when done with another person. :^)
    
    .bob.
    

    I've got to agree with the Hiker; maybe _people_ need people, but
    men and women needing each other?  Hmmm...
    
    Lee

    .7
    
    Re:  last sentence-
    
    Almost.  I also need my dog, especially on cold wintery nights!
    ;-)
    
    

                                ***WARNING***
    
                       ***Pedantic digression ahead***
    
    The original "...like a fish needs a bicycle" aphorism comes from
    Neitzsche, who said, "Man needs a God the way a fish needs a bicycle."
    I have thought that given its history, applying this remark to people
    is far from disparaging; it's really a back-handed compliment.
    
    	Jon

         need (ned) n. 1. A lack of something required or desirable. 
         2. Necessity; obligation.  3.  Something required or wanted.
         requisite.
    
    I would rather say I enjoy men then to say I need them.  Reality
    is we can exist without others.  It seems as if relationships are
    transcending need and are established more for enjoyment, friendship
    and companionship.  
    
    Having a relationship based on enjoyment is far more difficult than
    one based on need (financial or to procreate).  
    
    I am thinking of things I have said and I have heard others say...
    
      "He needs me..."
    
      "I can't leave him, I need his income"
    
      "I need a husband to have children"
    
      "I need a date to go to the concert"
    
    I hope to be able say..
    
      "He enjoys my company...
    
      "I couldn't leave him I enjoy his company"
    
      "He would be a good father...(can a 49 year old memere adopt?)
    
      "I would enjoy going to the concert with him..."
    
    

    
    
    I answered this WITHOUT reading any of the replies so I wouldn't
    be subconcisouly swayed to ne side or the other on *any* of these
    questions.
    
    1.  Happiness is a universal term which I interpret as meaning being
        able to achieve self satisfaction. In some women this means
        family (husband, kids, etc.) others it means making a mark in
        the business world or accomplishing something on their own.
        I feel that I can achieve hapiness without a husband or children
        in my lifetime. I guess that boils down question #1 to a no.
    
    2.  Yes. Marriage is an institution which not everyone is ready
        for. I feel that I do not *need* a husband to fulfill my own
        feeling of self worth. I know that I am capable of accomplshing
        things on my own. 
    
    3.  I think society has put a subliminal pressure on women today
        to get married and have children whether they want to or not.
        Some women also use this as away to escape problems. (not happy
        at home, get back at parents....) Right now I feel quite fulfilled
        and I am very single right now thoroughly by choice. I know
        it is not something everyone agrees with especially when I hear
        comments like "When is she going to get serious? Get a steady
        boyfriend??"
    
    4.  I think stronger women have chosen their career over marriage.
        I can't say whether I would or not. I would like to think if
        I found someone really special that he would be supportive
        of me in my career as I would be of him. There is a stigma with
        being single in this world and that we all should have a "mate"
        or a partner. Alot of things are geared towards the couples
        though I feel society is beginning to accept the fact that there
        are people who are single and actually enjoy it! I would have
        to divide the generations with the older generations being more
        pro-marriage and the younger generation being with whatever
        made you happy.
    
    

    RE: .6
    
>                                               Yes, I agree that
>      people do need other people but don't people consist of both
>      men and women?  Regardless of how you say it, doesn't it all
>      boil down to the fact that women need women, women need men, 
>      men need men, and men need women?!  Did I cover everyone?!  :-)
    
    
    Well, my point runs more along the lines that there is nothing about
    a man's gender that makes me need him any more than I need a woman.
    No, I do NOT need a man, no I do NOT need a woman, I need people.
    If I were the only woman on earth, then yes, I would need a man.
    If there were no men on earth, then my needs would be satisfied
    by women.
    
    The differences between _people_ are much larger and more interesting
    than _gender_ differences alone.  I have need for "other-ness",
    but that would be as easily satisfied in the absence of gender
    differences as it is in the world with two genders.
    
    My reasoning is thus: when people of one race are put together,
    they will still manage to find something which defines "other."
    For example, in an all-white population, Irish people may be defined
    as "other."  Where I grew up, an all-white, all Christian area,
    Catholics were "other" (as were my family of Russian Orthodox).
    Being defined as "other" often leads way to bigoted harrassment,
    etc, etc, but so does being defined as the "other" gender.
    
    In MENNOTES, there is an interesting note about what on earth do men
    NEED women/a_woman for, and my answer remains the same: they don't.
    They think they do, but the attributes of woman-ness and femininity are
    as easily found in a large portion of men as they are in women.  The
    "other-ness" needed so badly is not necessarily gender. 

    I have to take issue with you on the following:       
    
>       I'm sticking to my guns on this one.  Men and women do need
>       eachother but maybe I will concede that women need men (in 
>       respect to the security aspect explained above) just a wee bit 
>       more than men need women.  
    
    I couldn't find "the security aspect explained above".  Once upon
    a time, women needed men to survive.  Not survive emotionally, but
    financially: no man= no breadwinner= no $$= no food/shelter.  This
    is no longer true.  Maybe women needing men more than vice verse
    has been true in your experience, but it has most definitely NOT
    been the case with me or a majority of my friends.  
    
    Please explain what makes a woman need a man more than a man needs
    a woman.  And please explain what there is about a man that makes
    a woman need him more than she needs a woman (other than the
    procreative need: if all a woman needs from a man is his sperm,
    that can be had without much difficulty).
    
    I'm not trying to sound terribly militant here; "some of my best
    friends are men", and I have enjoyed my relationships with them
    a great deal.  I simply don't find the _gender_ argument very
    convincing.
    
    Lee

   Rayna,
    
    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
    
>   I believe that men and women are more different than the same.  

    I think that we are _trained_ to be more different than the same,
    but I don't beleive that is an innate gender characteristic, nor
    that those differences are any larger than that between your generic
    mid-west city woman and me (Maine country woman).  I also believe
    that trained-in difference in quickly falling by the wayside (happily
    enough, in my view).  The differences you mentioned were: physical,
    physiological, anotmical, and cultural (etc).  I don't see any
    difference between the first three of these (ie: physical=physiological= 
    anotomical).  Cultural differences are anomical: they change as
    does our culture(s).  Physical differences are rather small, in
    my view.
    
    If I can get the third level of Maslow's chart ("security needs include
    acceptance, affection, love, and companionship") with a friend or two
    who are female, does that make me homosexual?  Not really.
    
    Yes, there are differences between my relationships with men and
    my relationships with women.  Part of that has to do with the cultural
    training that goes along with gender.  Most of that has to do with
    WHO the person is, how much we need each other, how much we love
    each other.  Sex (gender-wise or fun-wise) really has nothing to
    do with it, and I think it will have less and less to do with it
    as women become less and less embodied-wombs and men become less
    and less protectors-of-the-hearth-and-home.
    
    But I don't think I'll change your mind or you mine.   <grin>
    
    Lee

    re: .15

>   By the way, the name's Nancy (not that I mind being called Rayna  :-)
    
    Oh, golly, I'm sorry :*}
    
    Lee

    Re: .15
    
    This shows why I like to see people sign their names to their notes
    if their "personal name" string doesn't include their name.  It
    helps prevent problems like this.
    					Steve

    
    the question in .0 was not
    do men and women need each other
    
    the question was
    do women (or men) still need to get married
    
    some one said
    "i married for love"
    i say....you can love just as much without marriage.
    you can commit to another person just as strongly without marrying.
    and thinking that *marriage/committment* = forever is...(dare i use
    the word??)		naive.
    just check out the divorce rate and the number of long term but
    unhappy and unfulfilled marriages.
    And noone, absolutely no one!!! knows who they will love or not
    love in 10 years
    10 months
    10 days.
    
    
    another said 
    "doing things with others is more enjoyable than doing them alone"
    
    do you have to marry everyone that you do anything with?
    nope.
    you can do lots of enjoyable things with lots of people without
    marrying any of them.
    
    someone mentioned "need for family"
    why does family have to be *husband/wife/kids*?
    why can't family just be those that you love...regardless of
    blood relationship.
    	if i could pick my family i would not include any of the people
    in it currently other than my kids...
    	and them i'd only include because of the love that already exists.
    
    then there was
    "some people aren't ready for marriage"
    i believe that most people aren't ready for not getting married.
    most people marry because they are conditioned to think that it
    is the ultimate state that every human needs/wants to achieve.
        far from achieving a level of high maturity i think it is more
    a level of conformity and a refusal to grow.
    
    and what does marriage have to do with *needing each other*
    regardless of needs for other people marriage does not have to
    come into play.
        we can need people with out marrying them.

    
    
    and lastly

    	lorna sthilaire and i posted something in a note over a year
    ago that closely resembles the points in .0
    	we got blasted (i got blasted...how unusual) for posting such
    outrageous ideas.
    	of course, if it's in a magazine it has more credibilty.
    

    Marriage is ONE of the things that makes my life more complete.
    
    I also need my job, my friends, my time alone, my daughter, other
    family members, etc., etc.
    
    Personally, I *like* marriage.  But I am glad that I live in a time
    where I was able to wait to marry until my early 30's.  I did not
    feel the pressure of *having to marry* that perhaps women felt at
    one time.
    
    I'm glad that marriage is no longer *the* symbol of success for
    women.  But equally glad that it's still an option.
    
    (I'm also from the school of thought that marriage precludes having
    children)
    
    jacki
    

    Cold thought: statistics show that single people die younger than
    married people.  Besides, who's going to take care of them when
    they are old and unwell? The state?
    
    The number of people with POSSLQ's is not yet statistically
    signifigant.  But they probably live longer and happier too.
    
    So, in addition to being "fun" [.20] marriage is "neccessary".
    
    rmm
    

    <--(.21)
    
    I seem to remember the studies saying that single *men* are less happy
    and tend to die earlier than married *men*, but that the reverse is
    true of women.
    						=maggie 

    re: .22
    
    Hmmm any idea who maintains these statistics ? Is there a 
    "book of vital statistics" in print somewhere ?
    
    In one set of statistics, someone stated that married men live
    longer than single men (maybe it only feels that way !).
    
    In another, someone stated that women tend to live longer than men
    (which I've seen in Actuarial Tables, so I know that one is true).
    
    Then, if we consider the women who have NEVER married, they ought
    to have the "LONGEST" life expectancy, correct ?
    
    I did  a male physician tell me that women who have children tend
    to have many more problems (physical) than men. Is it safe to say
    that child bearing (being a BREEDER) foreshortens a womens life span,
    also ?

    Perhaps my recollection is flawed, but it seems that the women who
    are highlighted as "being over 100" have all (most ?) been married,
    and with children (but not with child [ i don't think ]).
    
    
    Another "statistic" (I seem to recall) is one the states a person
    can compute their average life span by considering their natural
    parents life span (barring accidental deaths).
    
    Aren't statistics wonderful ?
    
    Bob
    
    btw- theres a certain advantage in misquoting statistics. People
    will remember the "misquote" longer than they'll recall the facts.
    :^)
    
    

    RE: .22
    
    	Probably cuz married men will be damned if they go first
    	and ler her get all the bucks....
    
    
    	{insert wise-ass smirk and tongue-firmly-in-cheek}
    
    						mike

    re .22  The logical conclusion is that men should marry other
    men ;-) 
    
    Hi, Maggie - oy vey indeed !
    
    
    Dana

    
                              
                                MARRIAGE
    
Marriage can be the closest thing to heaven or hell they will ever have in
this life. As men, we need to understand that God made men and women unique
to be different from all other creatures - from each other. 
    
    They were and are created to fulfill different purposes and roles in
    life. It is these very differences that cause difficulties in
    maintaining their relationship together.
    
    The differences were meant to bring balance and blessing to human
    lives, not to disrupt,disturb,demean or destroy them.
    
    Marriage, the unifying of husband and wife into one flesh represents
    the bringing together that were invested in man alone, and then
    separated into male and female. 
    
    From man came the woman through creation and by woman has come man in
    procreation since then. God unique balance of life is evident.
    
    Both men and women have part of God's image within them and both
    individually glorify God. They each share a common image, they each
    have a separate human nature.
    
    We live in what has been called the era of the mediocre man meaning men
    want authority but not accountability.
    
    Mediocrity is the bane of excellence. Mediocrity begets no glory.
    
    Excellence in spirit begins with having an excellent spirit. The more
    Christ like the man the greater the glory.
    
    A woman glories in her relationship to a man who manifests the nature
    and image of Christ-likeness.
    
    That's the man God wants you to be.