Meow
Cathleen Greenberg
> If you call what Sean is quoting above sarcasm...I think you
> need to go back to school and learn some more. This is the "net" --
> playground sarcasm don't cut it here, kiddo.
Coming from *anyone* else this _might_ have some merit -- but the queen
of sarcasm? which when you aren't being a first class b*tch (interestingly
almost always to women) is usually funny.
> and showing up at a pizza party does not make you knowledgable. Not
> in the least.
at least when I go I talk to people I don't already know -- what's the matter
Desiree -- scared of net.people.in.person?
> First
> you want to be courted, then you want a man to fight for you, then
> you want independence, then you want what? Consistency, Cathleen,
> consistency! That is the key! Do you understand that?
Tell me, oh wise one, what is inconsistent about wanting to be courted, liking
the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight to keep the
relationship and being independent?
--Cathleen
Monica Waldman
>Desiree scratches:
>which when you aren't being a first class b*tch
Seems the cat got your tongue all right.
>(interestinglyalmost always to women)
I dunno, I have seen Desiree have conversations, disagreements and flame
fights with both men and women. I've also noticed the men here going round
and round sometimes, I don't think anything of it.
>at least when I go I talk to people I don't already know
That's very nice, so you are a social butterfly. Some of us go to net events
to see our friends and chit chat. It is very hard to strike up conversations
with people you don't know (ie lurkers and those who occationaly post) and
sometimes not worth the effort. (I'm waiting for Marvin to get on my case for
this one). Everyone has got their own socializing patterns.
Musta been the hat...
--
standard disclaimer, etc., ad nauseum
"An addiction is a drag" -- Dennis Hopper
Mark William Hopkins
>the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight to keep the
>relationship and being independent?
A man should never fight to compensate for a lack of committment in the other
person or lack of communication or trust. If a woman requires he fight
(presumably someone else) to keep a relationship, then she's an inadequate
partner (and dishonest). Good reason to dump her there and then...
Those are just my views, but you said you like a guy who's assertive :)
Starcap'n Ra
> > then you want independence, then you want what? Consistency, Cathleen,
> > consistency! That is the key! Do you understand that?
>
> Tell me, oh wise one, what is inconsistent about wanting to be courted, liking
> the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight to keep the
> relationship and being independent?
There's nothing wrong with fighting to keep a
relationship, Cathleen. But when most people use
that expression it's a bit figurative -- having to
do with confronting and working out problems, for
instance. They aren't talking about beating rivals
to a pulp with an aluminum baseball bat.
--Starcap'n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
csnet, arpa: ken...@asuvax.asu.edu
Desiree Champagne
>Desiree scratches:
I *do* bite, rarely scratch -- please make a note of that Cathleen.
>Coming from *anyone* else this _might_ have some merit -- but the queen
>of sarcasm? which when you aren't being a first class b*tch (interestingly
>almost always to women) is usually funny.
Wow! I've been elevated to the level of Queen of Sarcasm? Hmmm.
I *like* that. I really do. You may now refer to me as Her Highness,
Cathleen. And don't forget to always kneel in my presence, commoner.
Oh, and thanks again. I always attempt to be first class in
everything I do -- and I'm very good at what I do too.
It's nice that it has been noticed that I do speak my mind,
freely. If I appears that I'm a "bitch" (my, oh my -- there's that
silly asterick again -- PEOPLE! If you need/want/have a burning itch
to use a word -- use the frumping word -- we are all adults here -- we
can hear/read these nasty ol' words without burning in eternal
hell...) to more women than men, perhaps that is because 1) more
women spout these sillyisms more frequently than men or 2) because you
haven't read my posts for very long. Whichever, doesn't really matter.
>at least when I go I talk to people I don't already know -- what's the matter
>Desiree -- scared of net.people.in.person?
Huh? Where'd this come from? I talk to whom *I* choose at
whatever function I attend. If I inadvertently ignored you Cathleen,
my apologies. I did not realize that it was important to you to talk
with me at length. But to be honest, I just simply didn't see
anything interesting enough to waste my time with. Simple, no?
>Tell me, oh wise one, what is inconsistent about wanting to be courted, liking
>the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight to keep the
>relationship and being independent?
There's nothing inconsistent about all of that, per se. But
you keep coming out with these little statements and then backpeddling.
If you wish to state your mind(lessness), by all means, do so. But
think about it first. There won't be a man around to do all the work
for you all the time...
Chow, chow, chow
Desiree
Chow, chow, chow...
Desiree
William Vajk
>Tell me, oh wise one, what is inconsistent about wanting to be courted, liking
>the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight to keep the
>relationship and being independent?
There's something in the human being which triggers them into taking
advantage of all resources, natural or otherwise available (sometimes
created out of thin air.)
On the surface, all the things you ask for in a man and a relationship
might sound normal, one by one. But what I see is a picture of a woman
setting her sights for a man who can be made into a servant. So if one
limits each request, it sounds ok to me.
wants a man who will court her.....but not too much
wants a man who will fight to keep the relationship.....but not too hard
wants to be independent.....but not too much
likes the difference between the sexes (if this means she's forever waiting
next to doors with hands by the side waiting for service then).....scat cat.
The stereotypical "traditional" relationship you idyllize, Cathleen, is
certainly not in a man's best interests. I've been party to the beginning
phases of relationships where I was doing all the work. Whether that was
ultimately because she just wasn't interested enough or because that's the
way she was ultimately (and in short order) made no difference. One little
rule of thumb I've found to be universally true is that they're never any
better than right in the beginning. If that doesn't suit you, why waste
your time, and theirs.
Superficially, this sounds as though it is in conflict with the little
scene I redrew about the words "I love you" the other day. Limited to
superficiality, it is.
Tellya how it is with me. All I want is a lover/partner with whom I click;
one I can live with comfortably. The largest criticalities seem to be focused
on things like 'can we talk on the same level,' neatness factors (hers should
ideally be close to mine.....not much worse, not much better,) and diversified
interests of her own.
You will note that not one of these factors has anything to do with how the
person behaves towards me. This implies a maturity level of a woman who knows
what she wants, is already established in her being, finds that togetherness
with me, over the long haul, is comfortable.
Bill.etc
Kenn Barry
Exhibit #1, yer honors.
>Desiree scratches:
Exhibit #2.
>Coming from *anyone* else this _might_ have some merit -- but the queen
>of sarcasm? which when you aren't being a first class b*tch
>(interestingly almost always to women) is usually funny.
And exhibit #3 - woman calling another woman "bitch" (well, I
suppose she could have meant "butch" :-). Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, it has been my observation that women who call other women bitches
or sluts, and who themselves categorize a disagreement with another
woman as a cat fight, share a common belief: that women are by
definition in competition for the attention of men, at all times.
>Tell me, oh wise one, what is inconsistent about wanting to be courted,
>liking the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight
>to keep the relationship and being independent?
Cathleen, you said that, coming from *anyone* else (other than
Des and Sean, I gather), the question has merit, so I'll repeat it. I'm
with you partway: I'd like to be courted, I enjoy the differences
between the sexes, and I like my independence. But what is this
"fighting" business? You haven't been very clear. Best I recall, you
first mentioned it when approving of Cedric's sentiments about taking
after rivals with baseball bats. You have said, I believe, that you were
not approving of actual violence, but you haven't said what you saw in
his comment that *did* merit approval. What was it? Fight whom, to what
end, with what tactics allowed? Instruct me. Let's pretend the love of
my life has just told me, "Sorry, hon, but I've fallen for Chester
Primm, and I'm leaving you". How would you have me proceed? If we agree
I don't get out the baseball bat, what? Let the air out of his tires?
Let the air out of *her* tires? Send old Chester a nasty note? Explain
to my sweetie that I'm a far, far better man than Chester is? Buy her
flowers? Buy myself a better wardrobe? Lock her in the closet 'til she
cries "uncle"? Pout? Whine?
Still getting the hang of this competition thing, I'm afraid.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: ba...@netcom.com OR apple!netcom!barry
Meloney D Cregor
>
> And exhibit #3 - woman calling another woman "bitch" (well, I
>suppose she could have meant "butch" :-). Ladies and gentlemen of the
>jury, it has been my observation that women who call other women bitches
>or sluts, and who themselves categorize a disagreement with another
>woman as a cat fight, share a common belief: that women are by
>definition in competition for the attention of men, at all times.
Or they are very immature little girls who have this as their only weapon
and think this is the ultimate insult.
> Pout? Whine?
I dunno, Kenn, works for the doggies. Always gets my attention. ;-)
--
For flavor, instant sex will never supersede
the stuff you have to peel and cook.
-- Quentin Crisp
Allan Armstrong
This afternoon, I am leaving for a long diving tip in Cozumel, followed
by a wine tour of France, and then I will be biking across the U. S.
When I get back, I'll drop you a line, and we can discuss our feelings
about my last post.
I hope this is ok with you.
Wish me a happy vacation. In the meantime, don't hurt each other too
bad, please.
:-)
Allan
Oh, p.s. - Monica, after I get back from Cozumel and before I leave for
France, I plan to drop by. Please be sure that Oleg is otherwise busy.
Thanks, darling.
Allan Armstrong
Desiree writes:
>In article <1991Apr6.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cathleen Greenberg) writes:
>
>>Actually, I think Eddie is more like a horse than a dog of any breed.
>
> Wow, he's hung huh?
At first, I thought Cat was referring to the fact that Eddie, like
any self-respecting horse, has a brain approximately the size of a walnut.
Cat, does Eddie spook if you go "BLAAHHH!" at him?
>>Since we just came back from three WONDERFUL days in Carmel where
>>we engaged in all sorts of sexist behaviour (Eddie held the car door
>>open; I wore lingerie -- not necessarily at the same time :-) I would say
>>Allan's description is just a wee bit off base.
>
> Oh, wow! How gallant of him. Did you like give him a checklist
>of things to do and not do?
You mean like Michel gives you? It's like this:
Desiree:
(1) Get dressed.
(2) Tie your shoes.
(3) Clean your room.
(4) Clean the kitchen.
(5) Get me a glass of wine.
(6) Go clean some more stuff.
(7) Put that pot away, I didn't lay a hand on her, no really, I didn't.
(8) No, you can't have any dessert, you've been bad.
> Or did he just rip off that old lingerie have have a go at
>it?
Probably. But it's all in the spirit of good clean fun!
>>Oh, btw Chet, Sean et al. _I_ am the one of the two of us (Eddie and I) that
>>lifts weights, and we have sent each other flowers at various times --
>>and there are certain things that we do, that could be categorized as
>>sexist, because it makes the other person happy.
>
> Oh, so wait a minute. You hold the baseball bat whilst the
>girls are gawking at him?
Not much different than defending your claim with a cast iron skillet, no?
>Just how does this work? Do you bully them
>and scare 'em away?
>
> Wow-II, you like sent him flowers too? How many? I'll bet
>it was just a run o' the mill 12 roses, huh? That makes sense...
No, but at least she owns a vase. (Keeps the thorns from hurting so much.)
You concerned that you only ever get them in sevens?
Well, I can see that my gaggle of gorgeous girls is getting a little out
of control. (And I've probably lost lots of points with all
concerned.:-) Now don't scratch each other's eyes out now girls. I
wouldn't want any attrition in the chamber. Line up and present
yourselves.
Now seriously, Cat may have some old-fashioned and inconsistent notions,
but SHE RIDES A BIKE, DIVES, and must be ONE GORGEOUS BABE. (It's ok for
me to refer to her in sexist terms like babe, because she apparently
believes in differences in chromosomes.) Let's hear it for bike riders
and divers!!! Oh, Cat, sorry about comparing your bo to a walnut-brained
doberman. There's probably better ones at Yale, anyway.
And as for fighting to keep a relationship together, I think the whole
notion is kind of silly. I'd rather not fight for someone who would
prefer to leave me. You should just be yourself; if the person in
question isn't uncontrollably drawn to you, it probably isn't the right
relationship to be in anyway. There's always more fish in the sea, and
that's a good thing to remember. The best way to find true love is to
give each other the freedom to do what you want. What's that old saying
about if you really love someone, just set them free.
Let me get one thing straight, Cathleen. Would you be impressed if Eddie
fought for you with an Aluminum baseball bat? How 'bout if Cedric fought
Eddie for you with an Aluminum baseball bat? Would this really prove to
you that either man truly loved you? Why?
Allan
W. David Rohwer
>> First you want to be courted, then you want a man to fight for you, then
>> you want independence, then you want what? Consistency, Cathleen,
>> consistency! That is the key! Do you understand that?
>
>Tell me, oh wise one, what is inconsistent about wanting to be courted, liking
>the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight to keep the
>relationship and being independent?
>
Cathleen and women who believe like her are being very inconsistent with
my definiton of a modern, independent woman. Cathleen says that she would
like to be courted. Because she does not say that she will try to court
the man, she implies that she expects the man to put in all the work
in courting her, thereby violating traits 1-4, 6 and 11 of a modern,
independent woman. Because she does not say that she will try to fight
for the relationship, she violates traits 1, 6 and 9-11. Cathleen is not
a modern, independent woman, by my definition.
Here is my definition of a modern, independent woman:
She believes in equal rights between men and women.
Here are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
1. She and a man contribute equally to all aspects of a
relationship.
2. She and a man court each other at a 50%/50% level. Not, a man
courts her at a 100% level.
3. She asks men out.
4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
5. She asks men to dance.
6. She does not expect the man to make the first move all of
the time and as a consequence makes the first move half the
time.
7. She has a career.
8. She opens her own doors.
9. She uses her mind to get what she wants without being
manipulative.
10. She does not depend on a man for everything. (Independence clause.)
11. Because she knows that she in not inferior to men, she does
not act old-fashioned.
++David
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| // W. David Rohwer // |
| \X/ Go A's! \X/ Internet: rohw...@netcom.COM |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Seeking Software Engineer position. Inquiries welcome. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu
>In article <1991Apr10....@leland.Stanford.EDU> c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cathleen Greenberg) writes:
>>Tell me, oh wise one, what is inconsistent about wanting to be courted, liking
>>the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight to keep the
>>relationship and being independent?
>
>Cathleen and women who believe like her are being very inconsistent with
>my definiton of a modern, independent woman.
Of course, there is nothing that says that your definition and hers are
even remotely similar.
>Cathleen says that she would
>like to be courted. Because she does not say that she will try to court
>the man, she implies that she expects the man to put in all the work
>in courting her, thereby violating traits 1-4, 6 and 11 of a modern,
>independent woman. Because she does not say that she will try to fight
>for the relationship, she violates traits 1, 6 and 9-11.
Well, having the woman being courted may preclude the man being courted
in some cases, but wanting a man that will fight for the relationship
does not in any way mean that she won't fight also. She was talking
about what kind of a man she wanted. I suppose she could have included
as a trait not minding if she fought for him, but that didn't really
seem to fit into the train of thought. I think she just doesn't really
want a guy who will bail out at the first sign of trouble, not holding
up his end of trying to get through the rough times, regardless of what
she does.
>Cathleen is not
>a modern, independent woman, by my definition.
Ok. Let's see where that takes us...
>Here is my definition of a modern, independent woman:
>
> She believes in equal rights between men and women.
Simple enough. I don't know that liking to be courted and wanting a guy
to be willing to fight for the relationship eliminates believing in equal
rights as a possibility, though.
>Here are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
>
> 1. She and a man contribute equally to all aspects of a
> relationship.
Sounds good.
> 2. She and a man court each other at a 50%/50% level. Not, a man
> courts her at a 100% level.
I don't know of too many guys who would be willing to do this for very
long without getting tired of it. Even if most of the more obvious
courting is being done by the guy, there has to be some on both sides
for it to really get going nowadays, at least in most cases.
> 3. She asks men out.
Here we go again... I'm not going to get into all the reasons that this
doesn't happen as often as men ask women out (whether they are legitimate
reasons or not). It is probably about time that thread comes up again
anyway, so I will leave it for that.
> 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
How about is willing to pay. A lot of times modern people feel
that whoever does the inviting pays. It is good if she is willing
to, if for no other reason than she then has the cash necessary
in case something goes badly and she gets stuck, but I don't think
she actually has to pay to be modern.
> 5. She asks men to dance.
A more mild form of #3.
> 6. She does not expect the man to make the first move all of
> the time and as a consequence makes the first move half the
> time.
#3 and #5 combined.
> 7. She has a career.
This sounds good. Assuming there is a job available for her, which
is by no means certain anymore.
> 8. She opens her own doors.
Or at least doesn't wait for the guy to do it because "that is just the
way it is done". It can get annoying when a common courtesy door opening
turns into a big battle because she thinks he is trying to not let her
be a modern woman, but if she gets to the door first, by all means, she
should open it.
> 9. She uses her mind to get what she wants without being
> manipulative.
I'm all for that in anyone.
> 10. She does not depend on a man for everything. (Independence clause.)
Good idea. Not just for modernism, but for survival. I mean, if she
depends on him for everything, and they get divorced, then where is she
(assuming they are not super-wealthy and she can live the rest of her
life comfortably on the divorce split).
> 11. Because she knows that she in not inferior to men, she does
> not act old-fashioned.
This could be a defintion of a modern woman all by itself.
--
Paul W. Francisco
fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu
Andrew F. Hampe
your point about a woman who wish that her man go
bashing up folks is a valid point. Obviously that
bimbo ought to have a chance to clear out a bar room
brawl before she be allowed to decide who gets to
get into them.
But Cathleen made clear a few odd posts back that
she was not so indicating. I believe her notion
of "fight" here is not "Armed Aggression" but that
dogged, determined keep the legs pumping, go for
the extra yardage after the tackle sort of win one
for the GIpper mentality.
i will agree that this suggest a bit of FSS[1] on her
part, as she is apparently presuming that males are
not interested in meaningful relationships, and hence
this is a bonus point.
ciao
drieux
ps: this with litigating the young lady does not
make any sense to me, Why she wants her gentleman
friend to take her to court confuses me.
[1] FSS: Female Sexist Sowisms
fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu
>i will agree that this suggest a bit of FSS[1] on her
>part, as she is apparently presuming that males are
>not interested in meaningful relationships, and hence
>this is a bonus point.
Or it could just not be a negative point. A lot of guys aren't
interested in meaningful relationships. Hell, a lot of people
aren't, but that is beside the point.
Say you actually put numbers to it (I know, you can't, but just
to try to make the point). Say she wants a guy that scores at
least a 90/100. All guys start out at 100, and as she gets to
know them they 'lose' points for things that are not compatible
with her. Say not being willing to fight to keep the relationship
going (the 'win one for the gipper' idea, not the aluminum
baseball bat) is a negative 15. They then only have 85, and they
are out the door. She is not rewarding those that would fight
by giving them extra points, but she is penalizing those who
wouldn't. That is just a matter of what she likes in a guy.
--
Paul W. Francisco You're only here for a short visit;
fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu don't hurry, don't worry, and be sure
to smell the flowers along the way.
-Walter Hagen
Robert Thurlow
>Here are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
And here are a few of my edits and additions:
> 1. She and a man contribute equally to all aspects of a
> relationship.
> 2. She and a man court each other at a 50%/50% level. Not, a man
> courts her at a 100% level.
12. She and her man are sufficiently far from being anally
retentive that they feel no need to implement 1. and 2.
as an exercise in bean-counting, but rather as a general
goal to which both will aim.
> 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
4. She pays for her share of the cost of a date(relationship),
which may vary depending on ability to pay of both parties.
> 8. She opens her own doors.
8. She and her men tend to open doors for each other, based on
who gets there first.
Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thu...@convex.com
An employee and not a spokesman for Convex Computer Corp., Dallas, TX
Andrew F. Hampe
Barry) writes:
|> And exhibit #3 - woman calling another woman "bitch" (well, I
|> suppose she could have meant "butch" :-). Ladies and gentlemen of the
|> jury, it has been my observation that women who call other women bitches
|> or sluts, and who themselves categorize a disagreement with another
|> woman as a cat fight, share a common belief: that women are by
|> definition in competition for the attention of men, at all times.
there is also the possibility that they,
like their male counter parts just
get that spring fever rage, and want
to get the old battle ax out and do
a little spleen cleaning.
give it up kenn, sit back, relax,
pop a cool one, be casual and enjoy
the show while it lasts.
ciao
drieux
Andrew F. Hampe
basically I like the outline of
what you see in a modern woman,
but we have a few MINOR little
problems here.
Will she support me while I stay
home and raise my children, so that
as a concerned father I can be a positive
part of their development?
or should we work on a new system that
will allow oth parents to survive in
their professions without having to
sacrifice their children?
ciao
drieux
Stephanie Jones
++David writes, as part of his definition of a modern, independent woman:
> 2. She and a man court each other at a 50%/50% level.
What do you mean by "court"? What behavior constitutes courting? What do you
do when you are courting a woman? What do you want a woman do to when she is
courting you? What makes you feel "courted"?
Stef
W. David Rohwer
>In article <1991Apr13....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes...
>>In article <1991Apr10....@leland.Stanford.EDU> c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cathleen Greenberg) writes:
>>>Tell me, oh wise one, what is inconsistent about wanting to be courted,
>>>liking the differences between the sexes, wanting a man who will fight
>>>to keep the relationship and being independent?
>>
>>Cathleen and women who believe like her are being very inconsistent with
>>my definiton of a modern, independent woman.
>
>Of course, there is nothing that says that your definition and hers are
>even remotely similar.
>
Your point is true. But, I believe that, in general, my definition
of a modern, independent woman is one of the more valid definitions.
>>Cathleen says that she would
>>like to be courted. Because she does not say that she will try to court
>>the man, she implies that she expects the man to put in all the work
>>in courting her, thereby violating traits 1-4, 6 and 11 of a modern,
>>independent woman. Because she does not say that she will try to fight
>>for the relationship, she violates traits 1, 6 and 9-11.
>
>Well, having the woman being courted may preclude the man being courted
>in some cases, but wanting a man that will fight for the relationship
>does not in any way mean that she won't fight also. She was talking
>about what kind of a man she wanted. I suppose she could have included
>as a trait not minding if she fought for him, but that didn't really
>seem to fit into the train of thought. I think she just doesn't really
>want a guy who will bail out at the first sign of trouble, not holding
>up his end of trying to get through the rough times, regardless of what
>she does.
>
There may be some cases that the man and woman follow the old-fashioned
courting rituals where the man does all the courting, but I do not believe
that is fair. If the woman and man court each other at equal levels, then
I believe that is fair because one person is not doing all the work.
Because Cathleen did not explicitly say that she would fight for the
relationship, I assumed that she would not. That my have been a bad
assumption on my part.
>>Cathleen is not a modern, independent woman, by my definition.
>
>Ok. Let's see where that takes us...
>
>>Here is my definition of a modern, independent woman:
>>
>> She believes in equal rights between men and women.
>
>Simple enough. I don't know that liking to be courted and wanting a guy
>to be willing to fight for the relationship eliminates believing in equal
>rights as a possibility, though.
>
If a woman does not say that she will put in an equal effort at courting
and fighting for a relationship, then believing in equal rights is not
possible.
>>Here are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
>
>> 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
>
>How about is willing to pay. A lot of times modern people feel
>that whoever does the inviting pays. It is good if she is willing
>to, if for no other reason than she then has the cash necessary
>in case something goes badly and she gets stuck, but I don't think
>she actually has to pay to be modern.
>
I disagree. The concept of "whoever does the inviting pays" is
not valid because the man does the inviting most of the time. Based upon my
definition, she has to pay to be considered a modern, independent woman.
>
>> 10. She does not depend on a man for everything. (Independence clause.)
>
>Good idea. Not just for modernism, but for survival. I mean, if she
>depends on him for everything, and they get divorced, then where is she
>(assuming they are not super-wealthy and she can live the rest of her
>life comfortably on the divorce split).
>
If she does not have a career, thereby classifying her as a non-modern,
dependent woman, then probably living partly on the alimony that he pays
her.
nancy.l.colucci
Ok, my two cents about this "Meow" business here.
I don't think "Meow" is a good term to use to describe two women who
are arguing, you know? You men in this newsgroup have had your share
of pissing contests, and nobody ever goes "meow" when to men go at
it. So don't go "meow" when two women start. It's stupid. Quit it.
Thank you. If one more person in this newsgroup goes "meow", I'll
scratch your eyes ... oooops. Pass me that there saucer of milk,
will ya? :-)
-Nance
"What's new Pussycat? Woahh ooh oh oooh oh oh ..." -TJ
--
^^^ ^^^ ~ ~ ~
\_/ \_/ ~ Nance Colucci att!ihlpl!colucci
\|/ \|/ THINK SPRING !! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
| |
Mark William Hopkins
>Ok, my two cents about this "Meow" business here.
ssss....
>I don't think "Meow" is a good term to use to describe two women who
>are arguing, you know? You men in this newsgroup have had your share
>of pissing contests, and nobody ever goes "meow" when to men go at
>it....
It's never too late to start. Rrrrr. Hhssssssssss....
>If one more person in this newsgroup goes "meow", I'll scratch your eyes ...
meow.
Paul W. Francisco
>In article <50...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes:
>>Of course, there is nothing that says that your definition and hers are
>>even remotely similar.
>
> Your point is true. But, I believe that, in general, my definition
>of a modern, independent woman is one of the more valid definitions.
It is a rather valid definition, even if somewhat restrictive. Still
doesn't mean that she is not a modern woman just because her attitudes,
etc. don't jive with your definition. She might not be modern to you,
but your definition is not the only valid one either. Lots of valid
ones would say she is modern.
> There may be some cases that the man and woman follow the old-fashioned
>courting rituals where the man does all the courting, but I do not believe
>that is fair. If the woman and man court each other at equal levels, then
>I believe that is fair because one person is not doing all the work.
Agreed. But a relationship in which the man does 100% of the work and
the woman does 0% won't survive very long. The courting might not break
down 50/50, but as long as it is sufficient to keep each other happy
it is enough. 60/40 may very well do the trick. But I know very few
guys who will stand for doing *everything*. They will get tired of
the woman seeming to not care. Maybe a guy who feels that if he loses
this one he will never get another, but that is about it. And even
they will weary of it eventually. Guys like to be cared for and thought
of too, so a dead fish will not do the trick. They will just be miserable
if they stay in the relationship.
>Because Cathleen did not explicitly say that she would fight for the
>relationship, I assumed that she would not. That my have been a bad
>assumption on my part.
She never said explicitly that she wouldn't either. You could just
as easily assume that she would reciprocate the behavior, because
she finds it admirable behavior, and of course she would want to be
the best person she could be.
>>Simple enough. I don't know that liking to be courted and wanting a guy
>>to be willing to fight for the relationship eliminates believing in equal
>>rights as a possibility, though.
>
> If a woman does not say that she will put in an equal effort at courting
>and fighting for a relationship, then believing in equal rights is not
>possible.
Theory and practice do not always coincide. Believing in equal rights
and practicing them do not have to go hand in hand all the time. That
might make them hypocritical, but it does not change their beliefs.
Also, it is not a matter of what she says she will do. It is what she
actually does. You make it sound that in order for her to believe in
equal rights she has to stand up and proclaim her belief. I don't
think that is so. It is not a matter of what she says. It is a matter
of what she does. If a woman shares everything equally, but does not
tell everyone else that she does so, does that mean that she does not
believe in equal rights? Cathleen may have not stated that she will
do her share, but that does not mean she won't.
>>How about is willing to pay. A lot of times modern people feel
>>that whoever does the inviting pays. It is good if she is willing
>>to, if for no other reason than she then has the cash necessary
>>in case something goes badly and she gets stuck, but I don't think
>>she actually has to pay to be modern.
>
> I disagree. The concept of "whoever does the inviting pays" is
>not valid because the man does the inviting most of the time. Based upon my
>definition, she has to pay to be considered a modern, independent woman.
Right. Based on *your* definition. I do think that it is a good idea
for her to be at least willing to pay, but consider this. Say the guy
has decided that he wants to pay every time he does the asking. When
the check comes he grabs it and won't tell her how much her share was
and won't accept any money from her. Is she not modern because she didn't
pay? Or take the case of movies. He goes to the window first, gets 2
tickets, and won't take money from her for one of them. Or maybe she
is low on cash but he wants to go out anyway. Also, every now and then
people don't mind being treated, or doing the treating. I will agree that
being willing to pay is a sign of a modern woman, because she doesn't
automatically expect the man to fall into traditional roles and pay for
everything because he is the man. But I don't think that actually having
green paper transferring from her possession to someone else's is a
requirement. That is basically asking for her to prove her beliefs on
every occassion. Actually paying is not required for her to be ready
to pay her half and to believe in equal rights.
> If she does not have a career, thereby classifying her as a non-modern,
>dependent woman, then probably living partly on the alimony that he pays
>her. ^^^^^^
Ok. Partly. But say that part is not enough to cover all expenses?
How does she pay for the rest? Ok, maybe she goes to her parents and
mooches off of them. Then I would agree that she is not modern. But
actually being in the work force is not required for her to be willing
to have a career, or to be able to have a career. She might just not
have a job, for one reason or another.
You sound as though you want women to prove their modern-ness at every
turn by actual tangible actions. What is wrong with believing her beliefs?
Sure, if she never practices what she preaches *at all* I would not
believe her, but I don't require proof every time to believe her. Just
like I do not require proof from myself on every belief that I have
every time it comes up. I don't believe in war, but I didn't go out
and demonstrate in January and February. I knew what I believed, what
my ideals were, and was comfortable in that. I didn't have to go out
and prove to the world everything that I believed.
--
Paul W. Francisco | And one day, in another time, in another
fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu | world, you will dance across a room and
see a stranger you have known forever...
and it will be me.
-Dark Shadows
Andrew F. Hampe
|> Say you actually put numbers to it (I know, you can't, but just
|> to try to make the point). Say she wants a guy that scores at
|> least a 90/100. All guys start out at 100, and as she gets to
|> know them they 'lose' points for things that are not compatible
|> with her. Say not being willing to fight to keep the relationship
|> going (the 'win one for the gipper' idea, not the aluminum
|> baseball bat)
ok, I come from the other side,
everyone starts at square 1, and
racks up points through a variety
of means... granted one can lose
points along the way as well.
my point remains that I'm a bit confused by the frumping
FemaleSexistSowisms that strut out here ranting about
men in relationships, as if there is A SINGLE DEFINITION
of what that means. Personally I'm not that content
with the "programmed traders and arbitrators" but I do
feel more at home with their notion of working a deal
than I do with what appears to be a process of starting
from a set Myth about RELATIONSHIP and trying to squeeze
folks into that.
ciao
drieux
ps: could we standardize WOFTG as the basic
notion of "fighting for the relationship"
rather than the ABB notion?
pps: while we're ammending the clarifications,
"I love you" does mean in my language, "I will
get you on a Helo out of here when all hell breaks loose."
Brian J Ross
#
# Here are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
#
# 1. She and a man contribute equally to all aspects of a relationship.
# 2. She and a man court each other at a 50%/50% level. Not, a man
# courts her at a 100% level.
# 3. She asks men out.
# 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
# 5. She asks men to dance.
# 6. She does not expect the man to make the first move all of the time
# and as a consequence makes the first move half the time.
# 7. She has a career.
# 8. She opens her own doors.
# 9. She uses her mind to get what she wants without being manipulative.
# 10. She does not depend on a man for everything. (Independence clause.)
# 11. Because she knows that she in not inferior to men, she does not act
# old-fashioned.
By this definition, I guess I've never met a modern independent woman.
I somehow doubt I ever will, because the strong societal forces during
people's upbringing strongly govern our gender role-playing later.
As a result, most feminist-minded women I've known still expect to be
"courted" etc.
It would be darn nice to meet such a woman. Someone surprise me!
--
Brian Ross.
b...@aipna.ed.ac.uk Diet Pepsi rules.
Bruce Oneel
the more impressive cat fights between two males? I don't see it
being attached to female-female fights at all...
bruce (wearing my cat proof coat with turtle neck and elbow length
leather gloves. Never bathed a cat who didn't want a bath, have you!)
--
| Bruce O'Neel | internet : on...@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov|
| Code 664/STX | span : lheavx::oneel |
| NASA/GSFC Bld 28/W281 |compuserve: 72737,1315 |
| Greenbelt MD 20771 | AT&Tnet : (301)-286-4585 |
Thats me in the corner, thats me in the spotlight, losin' my religion -- rem
Henry Polard
>Here is my definition of a modern, independent woman:
> She believes in equal rights between men and women.
Fair enough - you can defrine anything for yourself that you want.
>Here are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
AHEM! Surely you mean:
>Here are what I think are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have no right to legislate for ME, or overrule my observations
of, what the traits of a modern, independent woman are.
BTW, if a woman is independent, she is surely independent of your
set of traits, and of your definition.
I think that all attempts to categorize modern, independent women -
or any other people (or even beings and things) - eventually blinds
us to seeing and appreciating what they really are.
Henry Polard | REAL net address: | Reality / Virtual 17-line .sig
(408) 736-3300 | he...@maspar.com | is an allusion. \ with spiffy graphics.
W. David Rohwer
>In <1991Apr13....@netcom.COM> rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>>Here are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
>
>And here are a few of my edits and additions:
>
>> 1. She and a man contribute equally to all aspects of a
>> relationship.
>
>> 2. She and a man court each other at a 50%/50% level. Not, a man
>> courts her at a 100% level.
>
> 12. She and her man are sufficiently far from being anally
> retentive that they feel no need to implement 1. and 2.
> as an exercise in bean-counting, but rather as a general
> goal to which both will aim.
>
Trait 12 is fine, as long as both partners "aim", in good faith, at the
goal of each contributing equally to a relationship.
>> 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
>
> 4. She pays for her share of the cost of a date(relationship),
> which may vary depending on ability to pay of both parties.
>
d/r = date(relationship)
Unfortunately, this is a complicated issue. There are at least four
options:
1) He pays for 100% of the d/r.
2) She pays for 100% of the d/r.
3) Each person pays X% and (100 - X)% depending on their ability
to pay for the d/r.
4) She pays for 50% and he pays for 50% of the d/r.
I can discard the first two options very easily because both options
are patently unfair to both people. I can not discard the third and
fourth options right away because it seems that each is fair in its own
way. However, upon further inspection of the the good and bad points of
options three and four, I tend to think that option 4 is best. If you,
Robert, and/or the Net can think of other good and bad points for both
options, then please feel free to add them to the existing points.
Op. 3 Good Point. 1) The richer person can afford to go to more expensive
places for dates; as a consequence, the poorer person
has the option of going to places that had been
off-limits.
Op. 3 Bad Points. 1) Each person does not contribute an equal amount to
the d/r.
2) The richer person can buy the other person's time
and affection.
3) The poorer person can use the richer person for
his/her money.
4) The sons and daughters have to pay for the sins of
their parents and society.
Op. 4 Good Points. 1) Each person contributes an equal amount to the d/r.
2) Each person can not buy the other person's time and
affection.
3) Each person can not use the other person for his/her
money.
4) The sons and daughters do not pay for the sins of
their parents and society.
Op. 4 Bad Point. 1) The poorer person can not afford to go to more
expensive places for dates; as a consequence, the
pair only goes to places that both can afford.
>> 8. She opens her own doors.
>
> 8. She and her men tend to open doors for each other, based on
> who gets there first.
>
I agree as long as she does not expect him to open the door because
of old-fashioned etiquette. I have no problem with opening the door for
someone if I get to the door first. On the other hand, if a healthy
unencumbered person gets to the door before me and expects me to open
the door for them, then that person will wait there until they open it or
until hell freezes over, whichever occurs first.
Andrew F. Hampe
na...@cbnewsd.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
|> Thank you. If one more person in this newsgroup goes "meow", I'll
|> scratch your eyes ... oooops. Pass me that there saucer of milk,
|> will ya? :-)
here's a nice little piece of catnip
and a toy mouse, feel free to be
pleasant in public and or private....
ciao
drieux
ps: traditionally spring is time to get the
horses out, sharpen the old battle ax and
ride off to liberate the Roman Empire from
its decadent way....
pps: why do they always discribe this as
the "sack of rome" i didn't see any one
bring their own bags????
meow, meow, meow
-my old cat malachi
discribing his previous lives
Andrew F. Hampe
having had both a queen, and a neutered male,
I can attest to the amusement she would display
when every tom in ten counties decided to prowl
our cottage lawn when she was in heat.
Malachi, our neutered male, on the otherhand
looked on at these grotesque displays of
macho prowess with a note of disdain and shagrin.
so how the term came to be associated with
female-female entaglements is beyond me.
ciao
drieux
Meloney D Cregor
[...]
>
>Op. 3 Good Point. 1) The richer person can afford to go to more expensive
> places for dates; as a consequence, the poorer person
> has the option of going to places that had been
> off-limits.
>
>Op. 3 Bad Points. 1) Each person does not contribute an equal amount to
> the d/r.
> 2) The richer person can buy the other person's time
> and affection.
> 3) The poorer person can use the richer person for
> his/her money.
> 4) The sons and daughters have to pay for the sins of
> their parents and society.
But the one thing you are assuming here is that there is a great disparity
in economic levels. You disregard the possibility that both parties aren't
that well off and it may be a matter of one just being less poor than the
other. It often isn't a case of the poorer person being able to go to more
expensive places, but that the two of them can do anything at all.
I use myself as an example. The lust object is a poor starving student. I am
a poor working woman. If we had to contribute 50-50 for everything we do, we'd
never do anything. So, I pay a disproportionate amount by your rules, but
you know, by my rules it's just hunkey dorey. I don't see it as him 'buying
my time'. I see it as 'us having fun.' We don't do expensive things because
neither one of us can afford it. We opt instead for enjoying each others
company in the things we can do.
I am a firm believer in the 'things even out in the long run' philosophy.
I have no problem bearing most of the expense of the relationship now. I have
no doubt that a time will come when he will bear the brunt of the expense. At
other times we will share more equitably. The idea of having to be sure of
each person's contribution I find damned annoying.
And if things don't work out and the evening up doesn't come....
well, shit happens. That's life. There are no guarantees.
--
I wasn't kissing her, I was whispering in her mouth.
-- Chico Marx
w2...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
> are arguing, you know? You men in this newsgroup have had your share
> of pissing contests, and nobody ever goes "meow" when to men go at
No, when two men compete to see who is the Alpha male, the appropriate
cheer is to pound one's chest and yell like Tarzan.
W. David Rohwer
>In article <1991Apr15....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes...
>>In article <50...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes:
>>>Of course, there is nothing that says that your definition and hers are
>>>even remotely similar.
>>
>> Your point is true. But, I believe that, in general, my definition
>>of a modern, independent woman is one of the more valid definitions.
>
>It is a rather valid definition, even if somewhat restrictive. Still
>doesn't mean that she is not a modern woman just because her attitudes,
>etc. don't jive with your definition. She might not be modern to you,
>but your definition is not the only valid one either. Lots of valid
>ones would say she is modern.
>
I do not believe that my definition is restrictive, but instead is
very open. My definition defines a woman that is as free as a man and
gives the woman the freedom and power that the man has had for a long
time. For example, in my definition, the woman has the ability and
power to ask a man to got out with her or marry her. In contrast,
the old-fashioned woman would not be allowed to ask a man to go out
with her or marry her.
I believe that lots of definitions would classify her as an
old-fashioned or old-fashioned/modern woman, not modern though.
>> [Stuff about courting rituals.]
>
>Agreed. [Stuff about courting rituals.]
>
No need to comment about the above because we both agree.
>>Because Cathleen did not explicitly say that she would fight for the
>>relationship, I assumed that she would not. That my have been a bad
>>assumption on my part.
>
>She never said explicitly that she wouldn't either. You could just
>as easily assume that she would reciprocate the behavior, because
>she finds it admirable behavior, and of course she would want to be
>the best person she could be.
>
We both have made our assumptions. As soon as Cathleen responds, if
she responds, we will know which assumption is correct.
>>>Simple enough. I don't know that liking to be courted and wanting a guy
>>>to be willing to fight for the relationship eliminates believing in equal
>>>rights as a possibility, though.
>>
>> If a woman does not say that she will put in an equal effort at courting
>>and fighting for a relationship, then believing in equal rights is not
>>possible.
>
>Theory and practice do not always coincide. Believing in equal rights
>and practicing them do not have to go hand in hand all the time. That
>might make them hypocritical, but it does not change their beliefs.
>
I agree with your first and third sentences, I'm not so sure about
your second sentence. I believe that everybody is a hypocrite in some
way. The following is an example from my own life. I believe that
drug-testing without probable cause is unconstitutional and an invasion
of privacy. About a year and two months ago, I took a pre-employment
drug-test to get a job, although the prospective employer did not have
probable cause to test me. Based upon my beliefs, I probably should have
asked them to get a search warrant, and if they did not, then sue them
for invasion of my privacy and abridgement of my constitutional rights.
>Also, it is not a matter of what she says she will do. It is what she
>actually does. You make it sound that in order for her to believe in
>equal rights she has to stand up and proclaim her belief. I don't
>think that is so. It is not a matter of what she says. It is a matter
>of what she does.
I disagree. An observer's interpretation of a person is based
on a combination of a person's Proclamation of Belief and a person's
Action on Belief. There are six combinations of Proclamation of
Belief and Action on Belief as shown in the following table.
-------------------------------------------------------
| Proclamation | Action on | Observer's |
| of Belief | Belief | Interpretation |
-------------------------------------------------------
| No | Against | Person is against belief |
-------------------------------------------------------
| No | No | Person is undecided |
-------------------------------------------------------
| No | For | Person is for belief |
-------------------------------------------------------
| Yes | Against | Person is hypocrite |
-------------------------------------------------------
| Yes | No | Person is for belief |
-------------------------------------------------------
| Yes | For | Person is for belief |
-------------------------------------------------------
For example, if a person proclaims that (s)he is for equal rights
and does not make the effort to pay for one's share of a date, then
the observer concludes that the person is a hypocrite.
>If a woman shares everything equally, but does not tell everyone else
>that she does so, does that mean that she does not believe in equal
>rights?
Based upon the table above, the observer interprets that the woman
is for equal rights.
>Cathleen may have not stated that she will do her share, but that does
>not mean she won't.
Agreed.
>>>How about is willing to pay. A lot of times modern people feel
>>>that whoever does the inviting pays. It is good if she is willing
>>>to, if for no other reason than she then has the cash necessary
>>>in case something goes badly and she gets stuck, but I don't think
>>>she actually has to pay to be modern.
>>
>> I disagree. The concept of "whoever does the inviting pays" is
>>not valid because the man does the inviting most of the time. Based upon my
>>definition, she has to pay to be considered a modern, independent woman.
>
>Right. Based on *your* definition. I do think that it is a good idea
>for her to be at least willing to pay, but consider this. Say the guy
>has decided that he wants to pay every time he does the asking. When
>the check comes he grabs it and won't tell her how much her share was
>and won't accept any money from her. Is she not modern because she didn't
>pay?
Since she made an effort to contribute for her half of the bill, she
is modern. Unfortunately, the guy is acting old-fashioned.
>Or take the case of movies. He goes to the window first, gets 2
>tickets, and won't take money from her for one of them. Or maybe she
>is low on cash but he wants to go out anyway. Also, every now and then
>people don't mind being treated, or doing the treating. I will agree that
>being willing to pay is a sign of a modern woman, because she doesn't
>automatically expect the man to fall into traditional roles and pay for
>everything because he is the man. But I don't think that actually having
>green paper transferring from her possession to someone else's is a
>requirement. That is basically asking for her to prove her beliefs on
>every occassion. Actually paying is not required for her to be ready
>to pay her half and to believe in equal rights.
>
Paul, you have made your point. As long as the woman makes an effort
to pay her share, the woman can be classified as a modern woman on the
point of paying for dates.
>> If she does not have a career, thereby classifying her as a non-modern,
>>dependent woman, then probably living partly on the alimony that he pays
>>her. ^^^^^^
>
>Ok. Partly. But say that part is not enough to cover all expenses?
>How does she pay for the rest? Ok, maybe she goes to her parents and
>mooches off of them. Then I would agree that she is not modern. But
>actually being in the work force is not required for her to be willing
>to have a career, or to be able to have a career. She might just not
>have a job, for one reason or another.
>
Let's downgrade the career requirement to a job requirement. If she
is out of the workforce and planning or trying to find a job, then she
is a modern woman based upon the job requirement. But, if she does
not follow through on some other modern woman requiremnts, then she
is classified as a modern/old-fashioned or old-fashioned/modern woman.
>You sound as though you want women to prove their modern-ness at every
>turn by actual tangible actions. What is wrong with believing her beliefs?
There is nothing wrong with believing her beliefs, as long as her
actions do not contradict her beliefs. The last sentence applies to men,
also.
>Sure, if she never practices what she preaches *at all* I would not
>believe her, but I don't require proof every time to believe her. Just
>like I do not require proof from myself on every belief that I have
>every time it comes up. I don't believe in war, but I didn't go out
>and demonstrate in January and February. I knew what I believed, what
>my ideals were, and was comfortable in that. I didn't have to go out
>and prove to the world everything that I believed.
--
Paul W. Francisco
David:
> I do not believe that my definition is restrictive, but instead is
>very open. My definition defines a woman that is as free as a man and
>gives the woman the freedom and power that the man has had for a long
>time.
Well, it seemed to me that, while equally free for men and women, your
definition was very restrictive in its freedom. While she can now do
exactly the same thing men can do, there are strict guidelines for each.
Were I to follow these rules, no longer could I act on a generous feeling
and pick up the whole tab if I wished, for any reason. Say I just got a
big bonus at work and felt like celebrating by taking her to a fancy
restaurant? To be modern, I can't, by your definition. As far as
allowing a woman to ask out men and ask a man to marry her, yes it is
open and free. But in the dating scene it is restricting both, at
least the way I see it.
>>Also, it is not a matter of what she says she will do. It is what she
>>actually does. You make it sound that in order for her to believe in
>>equal rights she has to stand up and proclaim her belief. I don't
>>think that is so. It is not a matter of what she says. It is a matter
>>of what she does.
>
> I disagree. An observer's interpretation of a person is based
>on a combination of a person's Proclamation of Belief and a person's
>Action on Belief. There are six combinations of Proclamation of
>Belief and Action on Belief as shown in the following table.
>[...table deleted...]
Point taken.
> Since she made an effort to contribute for her half of the bill, she
>is modern. Unfortunately, the guy is acting old-fashioned.
Right. It is the effort and willingness that is important, not the
actual occurrence of events. Which, I see, you have acknowledged as
a possibility...
> Paul, you have made your point. As long as the woman makes an effort
>to pay her share, the woman can be classified as a modern woman on the
>point of paying for dates.
> Let's downgrade the career requirement to a job requirement. If she
>is out of the workforce and planning or trying to find a job, then she
>is a modern woman based upon the job requirement. But, if she does
>not follow through on some other modern woman requiremnts, then she
>is classified as a modern/old-fashioned or old-fashioned/modern woman.
Agreed.
>>You sound as though you want women to prove their modern-ness at every
>>turn by actual tangible actions. What is wrong with believing her beliefs?
>
> There is nothing wrong with believing her beliefs, as long as her
>actions do not contradict her beliefs. The last sentence applies to men,
>also.
Yes it does. I try to hold true to my beliefs, even if not actively.
I may not believe in war, but I don't join in on demonstrations. My
holding true to my beliefs is that I will not partake in the war and
further it. I don't like contradictions between actions and beliefs,
but when the beliefs have not been stated it is hard to know if there
is a contradiction.
Martin Stuczynski
God! I'd kill if I could find a woman that fits this
discription. What a turn on. Do any women like this exist?
Sincerely, Marty S.
Sundar Varadarajan
> I am a firm believer in the 'things even out in the long run' philosophy.
Exactly.
I hear about women saying that they would really like to be
courted and wouldn't it be nice etc., etc.,
I also know of a number of women who complain about how their husbands are
such pigs and have no concern and help with the housework etc., etc.,
(This is actually documented!).
And I wonder if they are related.
Whatever one soweth, that shall he reap.
Sundar Varadarajan
sun...@hpda.hp.com
Laura Cleland
>Here are some traits of a modern, independent woman:
> 1. She and a man contribute equally to all aspects of a
> relationship.
> 2. She and a man court each other at a 50%/50% level. Not, a man
> courts her at a 100% level.
Is 30%/70% ok? You can't have such a strict definition of independent and woman. And also it is difficult to define courtship.
> 3. She asks men out.
Should be no problem there unless it is one of shyness. Guys suffer from
that too I know.
> 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
I hate all this 50%/50% shit! I believe in give and take certainly. But
if one person has more disposible income than the other, do you think
that the relationship should be limited to what the lesser income can
afford?
> 5. She asks men to dance.
Fair enough...
> 6. She does not expect the man to make the first move all of
> the time and as a consequence makes the first move half the
> time.
Do you mean the FIRST first move, with each new guy? Or do you mean
the first move of an evening? The FIRST first move is a bit difficult
as people tend to think alot that 'if he likes me then he will come over'
etc.
> 7. She has a career.
That should not come into this at all. Not everyone (male or female) wants
a career!!!!
> 8. She opens her own doors.
Who ever reaches the door first should open the door unless they are
unable to.
> 9. She uses her mind to get what she wants without being
> manipulative.
There is nothing wrong with being manipulative....men to it too.
> 10. She does not depend on a man for everything. (Independence clause.)
She wouldn't want to....some men are less than useless!
> 11. Because she knows that she in not inferior to men, she does
> not act old-fashioned.
Strange definition of old-fashioned...And of course she knows she is not
inferior...a superior being doesn't think she is inferior.
The independent and modern woman is a complex being indeed. You could not
possibly attempt to describe it in eleven flimsy points.
Laura
Cathleen Greenberg
In article <1991Apr18....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes:
|>
|> We both have made our assumptions. As soon as Cathleen responds, if
|> she responds, we will know which assumption is correct.
|>
I did respond -- article #26756 and here is the article (below)
either it had not yet propagated to your site or you ignored it :-)
In article <1991Apr13....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes:
|> >
|>
|> Cathleen and women who believe like her are being very inconsistent with
|> my definiton of a modern, independent woman. Cathleen says that she would
|> like to be courted. Because she does not say that she will try to court
|> the man, she implies that she expects the man to put in all the work
|> in courting her, thereby violating traits 1-4, 6 and 11 of a modern,
|> independent woman. Because she does not say that she will try to fight
|> for the relationship, she violates traits 1, 6 and 9-11. Cathleen is not
|> a modern, independent woman, by my definition.
Well, I am glad you put by your definition. I hope I never fit any definition.
As for me, I am independent, which also means that my life is complete and
fufilled without a man in it. So if one comes along that is interested, he
would have to get my attention somehow, because I am usually pretty busy
leading a full and diverse life.
As far as your assumption that I would not fight for the relationship,nor
put any work into courting -- you are wrong (shouldn't always assume the
negative about people :-)
As far as who pays, I know I have paid at least 50% of the time. But I feel
it should be divided more along lines of affordability -- if one person makes
a whole lot more and therefore picks places to go that are out of the
financial range of the other person then they should foot a proportionate
amount of the bill (I have been on both sides of this one and really did not
like feeling stretched to the limit).
I don't depend on men for _anything_ learned that one a long time ago.
Does your insistence on a career extend to men too? Are you including
childcare/household as a career and if not why? It is just as valid to stay
at home (if not more so in some ways). I think people (men or women) who choose
to be full time parents are very brave.
If you are expecting the woman in your life to have a career and pop out the
puppies... then go to Krypton and ask superwoman out, unless you are planning
to be able to afford full time help and you both agree that that is ok as an
option. This is one that I haven't resolved in my own mind yet -- medical
school is not very conducive to having/raising children. This is probably
coming across like I believe that to be a parent you cannot have a career --
so let me clarify now that that is not what I am saying. I *am* saying that
it is ok (I think) to choose to stay at home.
I did not understand what #11 was supposed to mean... perhaps you could
explain.
--Cathleen
Greg Skinner
>Does your insistence on a career extend to men too? Are you including
>childcare/household as a career and if not why? It is just as valid
>to stay at home (if not more so in some ways). I think people (men
>or women) who choose to be full time parents are very brave.
Having two wage earners is sometimes a financial necessity. For
example, if you want to live in the adjoining communities to Stanford
(Palo Alto, Los Altos), unless you are married to a wealthy person, or
you won the state lottery, or someone left you a lot of money, you're
not going to be able to afford housing in those communities unless
both you and your spouse work for pay.
Frankly, I want to live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood. Since
I am not currently planning on becoming wealthy, I don't gamble, and I
don't have any rich relatives, I'm anticipating that if I get married,
my spouse will have to earn a salary, as will I.
I think there are positives and negatives to having both parents
working while at the same time trying to raise children. For some
children (parents), child care works out quite well, while for others
the children would have been better off if a parent could have stayed
home until they were old enough to go to school. Likewise, the extra
money that comes in when both parents work can be used to enrich the
kids experience growing up (for example, it will enable them to buy
learning aids for their kids if they need them; they can be given
swimming lessons, piano lessons, etc.), or it could be used as a
(poor) substitute for being caring and loving to the kids. I think
every family situation has to be taken under individual consideration;
there is no one correct solution.
If I get married I would like to have children (so I plan to marry
someone who wants children also). What I'd like to do is strike some
kind of balance between having two wage earners and having time for
both of us to spend with the kids until they're old enough to go to
school. Hopefully we can both get jobs at companies that will allow
us to work a reduced work week for a while, maybe taking turns every
six months or so to take off early from work so we can spend some time
with our kids. Or maybe one of us can set up a business at home. I
realize that may be somewhat of an idealistic goal but it's something
I'd like to work towards because I think it would benefit all parties.
>If you are expecting the woman in your life to have a career and pop
>out the puppies... then go to Krypton and ask superwoman out, unless
>you are planning to be able to afford full time help and you both
>agree that that is ok as an option. [...] I *am* saying that it is
>ok (I think) to choose to stay at home.
I think the decision to stay at home must be considered very carefully
and the option to return to the wage earning force must always be kept
open. There are too many women who have had to give up their careers
to stay at home, too many who are now unable to provide financially
for their families (because their husbands died or they divorced)
because they stayed home instead of worked for pay, too many who
became bitter because they got stuck in a role of childrearing and
household managing that they did not bargain for, and so forth.
--gregbo
Andrew F. Hampe
so when men are acting like the opening
of the rut, we should make moose noises?
ciao
drieux
ps: don't you guys just hate it when
all women ever do is put hats on your antlers....
Andrew F. Hampe
stuc...@presto.ig.com (Martin Stuczynski) writes:
|>
|> God! I'd kill if I could find a woman that fits this
|> discription. What a turn on. Do any women like this exist?
yes, there really are women like that,
and they are all happily involved in
meaningful and fashionably lesbian affairs.
cioa
drieux
Andrew F. Hampe
c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cathleen Greenberg) writes:
|> I did respond -- article #26756 and here is the article (below)
|> either it had not yet propagated to your site or you ignored it :-)
sorry but the #26756 is local to your systems history file,
what would be useful, though is to grep that number out
of the history file and associate it with the actual
netwide id number. please note that I am refering to your
article 1991Apr20.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU
which is a meaningful expression, vice saying
that i am refering to article #63928, which is
the number that data.nas.nasa.gov has associated
to it from its history file, before shipping it down
the nntp to moi.
ciao
drieux
Andrew F. Hampe
(Laura Cleland) writes:
|> In article <1991Apr13....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM
(W. David Rohwer) wrote:
|> > 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
|> I hate all this 50%/50% shit! I believe in give and take certainly. But
|> if one person has more disposible income than the other, do you think
|> that the relationship should be limited to what the lesser income can
|> afford?
excellent point! when tax time rolled around a lady
friend of mine was a bit confused by the fact that she
had grossed twice as much as me - so your split
would have been essentially equitable for us...
this would also help folks move away from the "I buy you,
therefore you owe me...." moeny as power trip game.
ciao
drieux
ps: I am though willing to negotiate becomeing a wholely owned subsidiary
of any woman who would be willing to consider a long term
lease[1] on me, as long as I can stay home and raise my kids.
[1] rumour has it that one can not directly OWN another person,
just like you can't OWN a condo in cancun mexico....
Mark William Hopkins
> 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
In article <1991Apr18.1...@maths.tcd.ie> lcle...@maths.tcd.ie (Laura Cleland) writes:
>I hate all this 50%/50% shit!
Yeah, I kinda agree. What if he asks her out, oh ... um ... say on a cruise on
a 'love boat', and she can't pay her share and he can? Then what? Should they
forego the opportunity of a romantic adventure just to observe principle?
Maybe Cat has some interesting insights on this question. >:)
------------------------------------------------------------
"Leland, Cleland. Sheesh! If it ain't one thing it's another."
Cathleen Greenberg
ok fine -- when I get to school tomorrow and have xrn I will.
Cathleen Greenberg
>>I hate all this 50%/50% shit!
>
>Yeah, I kinda agree. What if he asks her out, oh ... um ... say on a cruise on
>a 'love boat', and she can't pay her share and he can? Then what? Should they
>forego the opportunity of a romantic adventure just to observe principle?
>
>Maybe Cat has some interesting insights on this question. >:)
>------------------------------------------------------------
>"Leland, Cleland. Sheesh! If it ain't one thing it's another."
Yeah, if the invitation comes from one who can easily afford the expense,
and is willingly paying it, and the receiver of said invitation cannot afford
the expense but does offer to pay what he/she can and also reciprocates said
invitation with an invitation that is affordable, then the invitor should
seize the opportunity and pay the way.
Principles should be decided by the parties in question, no?
--Cathleen
Tigger
>
> so when men are acting like the opening
> of the rut, we should make moose noises?
Yes, unless you can do a bison better.
Greg
Joshua Poulson
You may want to cross-post that to alt.sex.bestiality. I, for one, have
never been able to do a bison. Nice Guys (tm) don't... ;-)
>
>Greg
Flame me! It's cold and rainy in Philadelphia!
--
Joshua R. Poulson [Joshua.R...@cyber.Widener.EDU]
"I speak only for myself, okay?" [pou...@cs.Widener.EDU]
"It is better to play the game and lose than it is to argue about the
instructions." (Me, 1991)
Mark William Hopkins
>Yeah, I kinda agree. What if he asks her out, oh ... um ... say on a cruise on
>a 'love boat', and she can't pay her share and he can? Then what? Should they
>forego the opportunity of a romantic adventure just to observe principle?
In article <1991Apr21.2...@leland.Stanford.EDU> c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cathleen Greenberg) writes:
>Yeah, if the invitation comes from one who can easily afford the expense,
>and is willingly paying it, and the receiver of said invitation cannot afford
>the expense but does offer to pay what he/she can and also reciprocates said
>invitation with an invitation that is affordable, then the invitor should
>seize the opportunity and pay the way.
I don't know how ... if could be clairvoyance, or the fact that our respective
birthdays lie only within 6 months of each other, or the fact that you might
have been playing "Same as it Ever Was", as I was reading a posting about the
Talking Heads ... but I just KNEW you were going to say that.
What would be an example of an affordable invitation to reciprocate with?
Just curious...
Another interesting question. What if they somehow ended up making a lot of
money (oh.... let's say with a gambling scam), how would it be distributed
among the cheating parties, especially in terms of reconciling the costs of
the date?
>Principles should be decided by the parties in question, no?
But, of course.
------------------------------------------------------------
leland, lcleland, lclcleland, lclclcleland, lclclclcleland, lclclclclcleland
Oh I'm so confused!
Cathleen Greenberg
|>
|> I don't know how ... if could be clairvoyance, or the fact that our respective
|> birthdays lie only within 6 months of each other, or the fact that you might
|> have been playing "Same as it Ever Was", as I was reading a posting about the
|> Talking Heads ... but I just KNEW you were going to say that.
|>
Well the talking heads are still my favorite group.
|> What would be an example of an affordable invitation to reciprocate with?
|> Just curious...
Depends on the time and place...Perhaps if he/she had invited her/him to dinner at
some outrageoulsy expensive place she/he could reciprocate by making dinner for
the other party in question.
|>
|> Another interesting question. What if they somehow ended up making a lot of
|> money (oh.... let's say with a gambling scam), how would it be distributed
|> among the cheating parties, especially in terms of reconciling the costs of
|> the date?
Well, since in the eyes of the law the party not beginning the scam would still
be an accessory, the winnings should pay for the trip!
<grin>
--Cathleen
Mark William Hopkins
> What would be an example of an affordable invitation to reciprocate with?
> Just curious...
In article <1991Apr22.2...@leland.Stanford.EDU> c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cathleen Greenberg) writes:
>...Perhaps if he/she had invited her/him to dinner at some outrageoulsy
>expensive place she/he could reciprocate by making dinner for the other party
>in question.
Sounds like an interesting offer.
But who pays the airfare? :)
> Another interesting question. What if they somehow ended up making a lot of
> money (oh.... let's say with a gambling scam), how would it be distributed
> among the cheating parties, especially in terms of reconciling the costs of
> the date?
>Well, since in the eyes of the law the party not beginning the scam would
>still be an accessory, the winnings should pay for the trip!
>
><grin>
Another way of looking at it, is that making the other party do all the dirty
work would be a means to even out the exchange, in case accidental radio
frequency noise gets picked up by surveillance when the embedded processor
momentarily wakes up to do a count or update.
The one doing all the dirty work would have to take the risk and accept all
the blame in case it fell through. If it did work through, the "blameless"
party could provide offsetting compensation of the risk-taker's choice.
<Evil grin>
Joshua Poulson
>In article <D=9_...@cs.widener.edu>, pou...@cs.widener.edu (Joshua
>Poulson) writes:
>|> In article <1991Apr21...@sif.claremont.edu>
>gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>|> >In article <1991Apr21....@nas.nasa.gov>, ha...@nas.nasa.gov
>(Andrew F. Hampe) writes:
>|> >>
>|> >> so when men are acting like the opening
>|> >> of the rut, we should make moose noises?
>|> >
>|> >Yes, unless you can do a bison better.
>|>
>|> You may want to cross-post that to alt.sex.bestiality. I, for one, have
>|> never been able to do a bison. Nice Guys (tm) don't... ;-)
>
>bring your legs out wide...."
But it's the buffalo stance... that really drives you in-say-ay-ay-ane!
>Lets do the Bison again.....
We can't leave out bits and pieces, now, can we?
>ciao
>drieux
I am NOT Janet.
Andrew F. Hampe
gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
|> >In article <1991Apr21....@nas.nasa.gov>, ha...@nas.nasa.gov
(Andrew F. Hampe) writes:
|> >>
|> >> so when men are acting like the opening
|> >> of the rut, we should make moose noises?
|> >
|> >Yes, unless you can do a bison better.
|>
|> You may want to cross-post that to alt.sex.bestiality. I, for one, have
|> never been able to do a bison. Nice Guys (tm) don't... ;-)
isn't that "a jump to the right and a step to the left,
bring your legs out wide...."
Lets do the Bison again.....
ciao
drieux
W. David Rohwer
>In article <1991Apr18....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes...
>>very open. My definition defines a woman that is as free as a man and
>>gives the woman the freedom and power that the man has had for a long
>>time.
>
>Well, it seemed to me that, while equally free for men and women, your
>definition was very restrictive in its freedom. While she can now do
>exactly the same thing men can do, there are strict guidelines for each.
>Were I to follow these rules, no longer could I act on a generous feeling
>and pick up the whole tab if I wished, for any reason. Say I just got a
>big bonus at work and felt like celebrating by taking her to a fancy
>restaurant? To be modern, I can't, by your definition. As far as
>allowing a woman to ask out men and ask a man to marry her, yes it is
>open and free. But in the dating scene it is restricting both, at
>least the way I see it.
I see what you are saying. So, lets change trait 4 from
"She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
to
"She/he pays for her/his share, 50%, of the cost of a relationship
over the long run. If at the end of the relationship, he/she has
not paid for 50% of the relationship, then the negligent person
shall pay the other person the amount of money that will make
up the difference." Comment: One may want to change the second
50% to 45%.
For example, if he has paid $400 and she has paid $600 toward the
relationship, then at the end of the relationship, he shall pay her $200.
Here is another example based on the comment: If she has paid $460 and
he has paid $540 toward the relationship, then at the end of the
relationship, she shall not pay him any money.
I included trait 4 because it followed from the equality definition
and it protects the man and woman from a partner that will use he/she for
his/her money.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Seeking Software Engineering position. Inquiries welcome. |
| Please look in misc.jobs.resumes. (BSCS + 3 Yrs. Exp.) |
Robert Robinson
> >
> > so when men are acting like the opening
> > of the rut, we should make moose noises?
>
> Yes, unless you can do a bison better.
>
> Greg
What if I do my impersonation of Grover Cleveland instead? B-)
Rob
rrobin@bluemoon (Rob Robinson) "And castles made of sand,
Fall into the sea,
...osu-cis!n8emr!bluemoon!rrobin ...... eventually."
...towers!bluemoon!rrobin
...nstar!bluemoon!rrobin
Paul W. Francisco
> I see what you are saying. So, lets change trait 4 from
>
> "She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
>
> to
>
> "She/he pays for her/his share, 50%, of the cost of a relationship
> over the long run. If at the end of the relationship, he/she has
> not paid for 50% of the relationship, then the negligent person
> shall pay the other person the amount of money that will make
> up the difference." Comment: One may want to change the second
> 50% to 45%.
I like that much better. I have just one question. Does the 50%/50%
have to be in monetary units? Or can it just be that each person has
brought an equal share to the relationship? Could some of what equals
things out be things such as backrubs, a little extra loving at a time
of crisis, a poem, or something to that effect? And if so, who gets to
place a 'value' on these other items?
Kikai heno hanashite
>In article <1991Apr13....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) wrote:
>> 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
>In article <1991Apr18.1...@maths.tcd.ie> lcle...@maths.tcd.ie (Laura Cleland) writes:
>>I hate all this 50%/50% shit!
>Yeah, I kinda agree. What if he asks her out, oh ... um ... say on a cruise on
>a 'love boat', and she can't pay her share and he can? Then what? Should they
>forego the opportunity of a romantic adventure just to observe principle?
in general, I think that the unless the person who asks says otherwise,
the person who asks ought to pay. If he ask her out, he's inviting her,
and ought to pay. If she asks him out, she's inviting him, and ought to pay.
The exception would be "Hi, wanna go dutch to a movie" (I've never done
that, so I don't know a good way to word it). In that case, the asker
is "saying otherwise".
It may not turn out a 50-50 relationship in terms of money.. but then,
what kind of relationship is it if your main measure of balance is money?
I think it's better to spend your thoughts on "is the control of the
relationship balanced" than "is the expenditure in the relationship
balanced". In the beginning, it might not be, but once you've been
dating a while (in my experience) it gets ironed out.
Something along the lines of: "I haven't got enough to take us out
for dinner tonight" "That's ok, I'll pay tonight".
I've only had one relationship where the lack of monetary blanace was
noticable.. and that's because I was VERY broke at the time. But I've
had several relationships where there were control/power problems..
(both trying to avoid it, both trying to have all of it.. etc etc)
and I think that's a much more important issue than money.
Oh..I'm sorry if the original post had more to do with that side of
things, but I went back as far as I could, and couldn't find anymore
than the above.
--
Discussing whether or not machines can think | John E. Rudd jr.
is about as interesting as discussing whether | gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
or not submarines can swim. --Dijkstra | (ex- kz...@ucscb.ucsc.edu) | Speaker to Machines
#include<std.disclaim> Send all comments, flames, and complaints to /dev/null.
Ami A. Silberman
>In article <1991Apr21....@nas.nasa.gov>, ha...@nas.nasa.gov (Andrew F. Hampe) writes:
>>
>> so when men are acting like the opening
>> of the rut, we should make moose noises?
>Yes, unless you can do a bison better.
>Greg
I can't, but my GNU (tm) can. (So can my Yacc)
ami silberman - compiler of lunacy
Tigger
>
> What if I do my impersonation of Grover Cleveland instead? B-)
If this means you're going to get in a box and stop breathing, I don't
think it will work...
| Greg Orman Let's get lost |
| gr...@pomona.claremont.edu - Fieger/Averre |
Aahzmandius
>In article <1991Apr23.1...@nas.nasa.gov> wetware\!dri...@indetech.com writes:
>>|> never been able to do a bison. Nice Guys (tm) don't... ;-)
>>
>>isn't that "a jump to the right and a step to the left,
>>bring your legs out wide...."
>
>But it's the buffalo stance... that really drives you in-say-ay-ay-ane!
>
>>Lets do the Bison again.....
>
>We can't leave out bits and pieces, now, can we?
>
....but you play one at midnight.....
--
--- Aahz (aka Dan Bernstein)
New Address!! @netcom.com (or netcom!aa...@apple.com)
"I don't object to sex before marriage, but two minutes before?!?"
W. David Rohwer
>either it had not yet propagated to your site or you ignored it :-)
>
I have not seen it here. (-:
>
>In article <1991Apr13....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>|> Cathleen is not a modern, independent woman, by my definition.
>
>Well, I am glad you put by your definition. I hope I never fit any definition.
>As for me, I am independent, which also means that my life is complete and
>fufilled without a man in it. So if one comes along that is interested, he
>would have to get my attention somehow, because I am usually pretty busy
>leading a full and diverse life.
>
If you hope that you never fit any definition, then how could you
define yourself as "independent"?
How would he get your attention? Would you try to initiate a
date or relationship with a man?
>As far as your assumption that I would not fight for the relationship,nor
>put any work into courting -- you are wrong (shouldn't always assume the
>negative about people :-)
>
So, you would fight for a relationship and put work into courting. I'm
glad that you will do that.
>As far as who pays, I know I have paid at least 50% of the time. But I feel
>it should be divided more along lines of affordability -- if one person makes
>a whole lot more and therefore picks places to go that are out of the
>financial range of the other person then they should foot a proportionate
>amount of the bill (I have been on both sides of this one and really did not
>like feeling stretched to the limit).
>
I would hope that both people would decide to go to places that
are affordable to both. I disagree with the concept of dividing the cost
based on affordability. For an explanation, look at article number:
<1991Apr16....@netcom.COM>
>I don't depend on men for _anything_ learned that one a long time ago.
>Does your insistence on a career extend to men too?
Yes, my insistence on a career extends to men.
>Are you including childcare/household as a career and if not why?
If one defines childcare/household as taking care of other people's
children for money, then childcare/household could be a career. If one
defines childcare/household as staying home and raising one's children,
then childcare/household is not a career because one does not contribute
financial resources to the family unit.
>It is just as valid to stay at home (if not more so in some ways).
>I think people (men or women) who choose to be full time parents are very
>brave.
>
If the family unit can afford a parent that stays at home raising
the child or children, then allowing a parent that stays at home is valid.
But, if there is a divorce, then do not expect the working partner to pay
alimony to the house partner. Only expect the parent without custody of
the child or children to pay child support to the other parent.
>If you are expecting the woman in your life to have a career and pop out the
>puppies... then go to Krypton and ask superwoman out, unless you are planning
>to be able to afford full time help and you both agree that that is ok as an
>option.
Since I have firsthand experience of being in a family where my
step-mother and father had careers when raising between one and four
children, I believe that, if my future wife and I had a family, both
of us would continue our careers. My mother raising my sister and
I alone while continuing to work is additional evidence that superwomen
and supermen exist on Earth, not Krypton.
I believe that the only time a couple or single person should have
a child or children is when one knows that the family unit can afford to
care for the family without government help. I don't want my taxes
supporting somebody else's child when the parents knew that they could not
afford to care for the bigger family. The parents have to know that
they have the resources available to support a larger family before
they make their family larger. If the parents decide to make their
family larger when they know that they do not have the resources, then
the family will have to pay the consequences for their action without
government help.
>This is one that I haven't resolved in my own mind yet -- medical
>school is not very conducive to having/raising children. This is probably
>coming across like I believe that to be a parent you cannot have a career --
>so let me clarify now that that is not what I am saying. I *am* saying that
>it is ok (I think) to choose to stay at home.
>
>I did not understand what #11 was supposed to mean... perhaps you could
>explain.
>
>--Cathleen
Original 11. Because she knows that she is not inferior to men,
she does not act old-fashioned.
Rephrased 11. Because she knows that she is an equal to a man,
she only acts in modern ways.
Does "Rephrased 11" explain what I mean?
W. David Rohwer
>An independent woman is one who doesn't depend on you. Specifically
>you, the specific you.
Not necessarily. If an independent woman and I were SO's to each
other, we would be dependent on each other in some ways.
>And while we're in this discussion....when you get embroiled in lengthy
>definitive behaviors as you have, it is pretty difficult to sort out
>such behaviors as are actually taking advantage of you rather than
>dependent.
>
So, how would you distiguish between taking advantange of someone
and being dependent on someone?
Andrew F. Hampe
definition of a modern woman seems
to sound quaintly familiar to the
matter of the party of the first part
shall, upon completion of, or discharge
from, the constraints of the said
contract, as stipulated below, dispurse
the unclaimed, or accrued, assets, such
as will have been obtained through the
means and methods below stipulated....
perchance if we let the "modern women"
come across with the various manner,
means, methods, etc, etc,etc,etc,
needed to define said group - then
we the Males, being the party of the
second part, can attempt to likewise
organize, UNIONIZE, STRIKE!
Brothers we have nothing to lose but our Chains!
ciao
drieux
Andrew F. Hampe
Poulson) writes:
|> In article <1991Apr23.1...@nas.nasa.gov>
wetware\!dri...@indetech.com writes:
|> >In article <D=9_...@cs.widener.edu>, pou...@cs.widener.edu (Joshua
|> >Poulson) writes:
|> >|> In article <1991Apr21...@sif.claremont.edu>
|> >gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
|> >|> >In article <1991Apr21....@nas.nasa.gov>, ha...@nas.nasa.gov
|> >(Andrew F. Hampe) writes:
|> >|> >>
|> >|> >> so when men are acting like the opening
|> >|> >> of the rut, we should make moose noises?
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Yes, unless you can do a bison better.
|> >|>
|> >|> You may want to cross-post that to alt.sex.bestiality. I, for one, have
|> >|> never been able to do a bison. Nice Guys (tm) don't... ;-)
|> >
|> >isn't that "a jump to the right and a step to the left,
|> >bring your legs out wide...."
|>
|> But it's the buffalo stance... that really drives you in-say-ay-ay-ane!
|>
|> >Lets do the Bison again.....
|>
|> We can't leave out bits and pieces, now, can we?
|> I am NOT Janet.
well look bud, the last time I went I had
to go as Brad because I had absolutely Nothing
to Wear! and Worse Yet that Bitch Paul B.
never did give me back my gold lame dress,
the cute one that was cut so, well, clingey,
and Ok, so he did Look better in it and all....
"is that anyway to pick your friends?"
ciao
drieux
ps: did you know that a noted net.person's child
actually told them that they were off to go see
that MOVIE, so that they could stay out late!
I mean the NERVE of the Younger Generation!
W. David Rohwer
>>In article <51...@apple.Apple.COM> st...@Apple.COM (Stephanie Jones) writes:
>>>What behavior constitutes courting?
>>
>> Whatever behavior that both partners agree is courting.
>
>That is very general. The thing is, based on this definition, you
>could actually consider your earlier concern about courting 50/50
>as a moot point. It is possible that a the behavior that partners
>agree is courting is as follows:
>
>The woman feels that the guy courting her should pay for everything,
>send her flowers, serenade her, etc.
>
>The man may feel that the proper reciprocating behavior for the woman
>to court the man is to just allow this to happen.
>
>I don't feel that this is equal courting, so I would not be one of
>these 'both partners'. But it is possible that somewhere this is
>the case. This of course would mean that they would see it as each
>other courting the other 50/50.
>
I agree that it is not equal courting. The courting that you
describe is very old-fashioned. My earlier concern about courting 50/50
is not moot because one can classify a certain courting ritual as
modern or old-fashioned. If one were to follow the equality definition,
then one would be able to say that a certain courting behavior is modern.
W. David Rohwer
>In article <1991Apr16....@netcom.COM> rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>[...]
>>Op. 3 Good Point. 1) The richer person can afford to go to more expensive
>> places for dates; as a consequence, the poorer person
>> has the option of going to places that had been
>> off-limits.
>>
>>Op. 3 Bad Points. 1) Each person does not contribute an equal amount to
>> the d/r.
>> 2) The richer person can buy the other person's time
>> and affection.
>> 3) The poorer person can use the richer person for
>> his/her money.
>> 4) The sons and daughters have to pay for the sins of
>> their parents and society.
>
>But the one thing you are assuming here is that there is a great disparity
>in economic levels. You disregard the possibility that both parties aren't
>that well off and it may be a matter of one just being less poor than the
>other.
>
No, I am not assuming that there is a great disparity in economic
levels. I believe that option 3 applies to all economic levels. For
example, person A earns $35,000/yr of which $1,000 is disposable, and
person B earns $33,000/yr of which $2,000 is disposable. Who is
the poorer person? If one uses salary as the measure for
richness/poorness, then person B is poorer. However, if one uses disposable
income as the measure, then person A is poorer. The fair and equatable
solution is for each person to contribute an equal amount of money to
the relationship over the long run.
>It often isn't a case of the poorer person being able to go to more
>expensive places, but that the two of them can do anything at all.
I would hope that both people would be able to put a priority on
saving enough money to do things together that cost money.
>I use myself as an example. The lust object is a poor starving student. I am
>a poor working woman. If we had to contribute 50-50 for everything we do, we'd
>never do anything.
Why would you not be able to do anything?
>So, I pay a disproportionate amount by your rules, but you know, by my rules
>it's just hunkey dorey. I don't see it as him 'buying my time'. I see it as
>'us having fun.'
Don't you mean "I don't see it as me 'buying his time'"?
>We don't do expensive things because neither one of us can afford it. We opt
>instead for enjoying each others company in the things we can do.
>
>I am a firm believer in the 'things even out in the long run' philosophy.
>I have no problem bearing most of the expense of the relationship now. I have
>no doubt that a time will come when he will bear the brunt of the expense. At
>other times we will share more equitably. The idea of having to be sure of
>each person's contribution I find damned annoying.
>
I'm not so sure that things even out in the long run. That is one
of the reasons for the equal contribution to the relationship trait. Another
reason is that the trait protects each person from losing out financially at
the end of a relationship.
>And if things don't work out and the evening up doesn't come....
>well, shit happens. That's life. There are no guarantees.
It is obvious that there are no guarantees in life. But, if there
is a way to protect oneself, then one should try to protect oneself.
Andrew F. Hampe
(Ami A. Silberman) writes:
|> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
|>
|> >In article <1991Apr21....@nas.nasa.gov>, ha...@nas.nasa.gov
(Andrew F. Hampe) writes:
|> >>
|> >> so when men are acting like the opening
|> >> of the rut, we should make moose noises?
|>
|> >Yes, unless you can do a bison better.
You folks wouldn't mind if I steer
this back to the original gag woodChuck?
ciao
drieux
Mark William Hopkins
>attention somehow, because I am usually pretty busy leading a full and diverse
>life.
Not any more. You're a net addict now. There's no turning back.
In article <1991Apr24.0...@netcom.COM> rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes:
> How would he get your attention?...
Oh, probably some silly thing like pretending to be Arnold Schwarzenegger or
Hans and Franz or something.
Cathleen Greenberg
>Sounds like an interesting offer.
>
>But who pays the airfare? :)
That is for the parties in question to decide -- the one who flies I suppose.
Therefore locations would have to change frequently to balance the expenses.
>
>Another way of looking at it, is that making the other party do all the dirty
>work would be a means to even out the exchange, in case accidental radio
>frequency noise gets picked up by surveillance when the embedded processor
>momentarily wakes up to do a count or update.
>
>The one doing all the dirty work would have to take the risk and accept all
>the blame in case it fell through. If it did work through, the "blameless"
>party could provide offsetting compensation of the risk-taker's choice.
>
><Evil grin>
However, if they are caught the law will not see it as blameless or not --
both will take the rap -- so I still uphold the winnings should pay for the
trip including recompense of airfare :-)
Of course the idea of offsetting compensation is intriguing....
Cathleen Greenberg
>Having two wage earners is sometimes a financial necessity.
[...]
Actually the New York Times had a very enlightening article on the front page
of the business section this past sunday. WHen you take into account the
added expenses of both parents working (childare, work clothes, lunches,
commuting..) the additional income amounts to about $5000 -- regardless of
the incomes of the two wage earners -- the two highlighted examples were
an urban couple where he made $70,000 and she made $50,000 and a rural
couple where he made $20,000 and she made $16,000. Granted for the rural
couple this is a much larger percentage of the income, but personally I would
rather that my child receive his/her values from me than a stranger if I have
a choice. So I am not sure if this premise (which is commonly believed)
really holds up.
Of course if there is a grandparent around to sit for the kids, then the
final equation is going to change. I am mainly referring to the point that
David brought up of an independent woman must work -- I disagree that staying
home is not valid as a career.
>I think there are positives and negatives to having both parents
>working while at the same time trying to raise children.
[...]
Agreed -- that is why I am still going to medical school, even though I want
kids.
>If I get married I would like to have children (so I plan to marry
>someone who wants children also). What I'd like to do is strike some
>kind of balance between having two wage earners and having time for
>both of us to spend with the kids until they're old enough to go to
>school.
Me too (the balance part) -- I anticipate this will be extremely difficult.
>
>I think the decision to stay at home must be considered very carefully
>and the option to return to the wage earning force must always be kept
>open. There are too many women who have had to give up their careers
>to stay at home, too many who are now unable to provide financially
>for their families (because their husbands died or they divorced)
>because they stayed home instead of worked for pay, too many who
>became bitter because they got stuck in a role of childrearing and
>household managing that they did not bargain for, and so forth.
But I see this more a fault of society not valuing women's roles in the home
than a fault of the woman not pursuing a career outside the home. [IMO]
--Cathleen
Cathleen Greenberg
>
> If you hope that you never fit any definition, then how could you
>define yourself as "independent"?
/
touche.
I just found your definition (as opposed to Webster's) a bit confining.
> How would he get your attention? Would you try to initiate a
>date or relationship with a man?
Yeah -- I have. More than once. The last two times with a man I was already
friends with.
>
> I would hope that both people would decide to go to places that
>are affordable to both. I disagree with the concept of dividing the cost
>based on affordability. For an explanation, look at article number:
Well, like I said, have been in the situation. When I lived in New York, and
was working free lance in the film business (not the highest paying
profession) I was often living hand to mouth. Many of the men I dated were
rather successful -- many of them older as well. They did not want to dine
at restaurants I could afford. I did reciprocate by cooking dinner (something
I could afford).
>
> If one defines childcare/household as taking care of other people's
>children for money, then childcare/household could be a career. If one
>defines childcare/household as staying home and raising one's children,
>then childcare/household is not a career because one does not contribute
>financial resources to the family unit.
Oh no? How about the cost of: childcare, laundry, maid service, cook...
I really have to disagree with you here. This is the attitude that I find
to be anti-feminist (these days I guess anti-homemaker). The reason I
say anti-feminist, is that homemaking is traditionally been seen as
women's work and it is devalued. I sincerely hope we (as a society) start
having an appreciation for what it takes instead of continuing this myth
of it not being work because there is no paycheck. arghhh. Of course this
would mean giving more value to women as a whole instead of just women who
emulate men.
>
> If the family unit can afford a parent that stays at home raising
>the child or children, then allowing a parent that stays at home is valid.
See what I said about the NYT article in my response to gregbo -- don't know
the article number yet.
> Since I have firsthand experience of being in a family where my
>step-mother and father had careers when raising between one and four
>children, I believe that, if my future wife and I had a family, both
>of us would continue our careers. My mother raising my sister and
>I alone while continuing to work is additional evidence that superwomen
>and supermen exist on Earth, not Krypton.
>
yeah my mom worked too -- still does not mean it is a necessity to me.
> I believe that the only time a couple or single person should have
>a child or children is when one knows that the family unit can afford to
>care for the family without government help. I don't want my taxes
>supporting somebody else's child when the parents knew that they could not
>afford to care for the bigger family. The parents have to know that
>they have the resources available to support a larger family before
>they make their family larger. If the parents decide to make their
>family larger when they know that they do not have the resources, then
>the family will have to pay the consequences for their action without
>government help.
>
Absolutely -- when did I ever come out in favor of a welfare state? BUt
your advocating no alimony would sure as hell ensure that welfare continues!
>
> Rephrased 11. Because she knows that she is an equal to a man,
> she only acts in modern ways.
>
> Does "Rephrased 11" explain what I mean?
>
Please define modern ways -- or was that 1-10?
--Cathleen
Mark William Hopkins
> If one defines childcare/household as taking care of other people's
>children for money, then childcare/household could be a career. If one
>defines childcare/household as staying home and raising one's children,
>then childcare/household is not a career because one does not contribute
>financial resources to the family unit.
In article <1991Apr24.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU> c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cathleen Greenberg) writes:
>The reason I say anti-feminist, is that homemaking is traditionally been seen
>as women's work and it is devalued.
I think you have cause and effect reversed. It should read: homemaking has
traditionally been devalued, and thus was seen as women's work (because women
were seen as devalued).
Homemaking for the family is work where the producer and consumer are in the
same household. The producer and consumer are basically one. A typical
career in modern society, on the other hand, involves a split between
consumer and producer.
That society traditionally divided labor between men and women along those
lines. Production for consumption typically fell on the hands of women,
production for *other's* consumption on the hands of men.
Think of the word value. A lot of people have this notion that money should
be the measure of value. But what is money? It's just a way to mediate the
split between consumer and producer in a society that's specialized. If
it weren't for specialization, money wouldn't be necessary ... and when machines
take over and give us back our self-sufficiency through the aid of complete
automation, money won't be needed anymore then (and with people like me around
you can be assured that machines WILL take over >:))
As long as money meant value, work that didn't fall into this mold of split
consumer and producer was considered worthless. So you can see how it's all
circular.
The real problem is therefore not that women's work has been devalued, but
rather that work in which consumer and producer are one (which happened to
be traditionally assigned to women) has been devalued.
In other words, the REAL problem is the way people define value in terms of
money and specialization.
So let it be known henceforth, that a new political movement, of which I am
the first member, has sprung forth on this land whose platform consists of
the goals: (1) Full Automation, (2) Elimination of money and elimination of its
necessity, (3) Self-sufficiency through the aid of complete automation of
services, (4) That, owing to the completely elinimated costs of labor, all the
basic necessities of life should be as free as the air we breathe.
And let us not stop until we have taken over the entire planet (and Mars too
after that's colonized). And the name for this shall be Technotopia.
We then shall become the first specialized economy in the history of the human
race whose members were totally self-sufficient.
Mark D. Hessman
|> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
|> > >
|> > > so when men are acting like the opening
|> > > of the rut, we should make moose noises?
|> >
|> > Yes, unless you can do a bison better.
|> >
|> > Greg
|>
|> What if I do my impersonation of Grover Cleveland instead? B-)
|>
|> Rob
|>
Wait... wasn't it *Taft* who eventually became part of the Bull Moose party? =)
Mark
Mark William Hopkins
>The one doing all the dirty work would have to take the risk and accept all
>the blame in case it fell through. If it did work through, the "blameless"
>party could provide offsetting compensation of the risk-taker's choice.
>
><Evil grin>
In article <1991Apr24.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU> c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cathleen Greenberg) writes:
>However, if they are caught the law will not see it as blameless or not --
>both will take the rap -- so I still uphold the winnings should pay for the
>trip including recompense of airfare :-)
>
>Of course the idea of offsetting compensation is intriguing....
Then the other person could deny ever having known or met the culprit ("golly
officer, I don't know how she got my other cruise ticket, I never 'saw' her
before this cruise. Honest.")
But then I can just imagine the demands that would be placed on the 'blameless'
partner. They'd probably be very stringent, to say the least.
Of course, all this is hypothetical. Nobody in their right mind would ever
dare do something as bold as initiating a courtship by asking the prospective
partner out on a ocean cruise, especially one where they could involve
themselves in an elaborate gambling set-up on the ship's casino.
Would they?
jh...@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Wait... wasn't it *Taft* who eventually became part of the Bull Moose party?
=)
--->
Well, if you ask me, the idea sounds taft to me.
Sorry.
Jim Henk.
csd4.csd.uw...@overmind.mind.org
Rohwer) writes:
> If one defines childcare/household as taking care of other people's
>children for money, then childcare/household could be a career. If one
>defines childcare/household as staying home and raising one's children,
>then childcare/household is not a career because one does not contribute
>financial resources to the family unit.
In article <1991Apr24.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Greg Skinner
>of the business section this past sunday. WHen you take into account the
>added expenses of both parents working (childare, work clothes, lunches,
>commuting..) the additional income amounts to about $5000 -- regardless of
>the incomes of the two wage earners -- the two highlighted examples were
>an urban couple where he made $70,000 and she made $50,000 and a rural
>couple where he made $20,000 and she made $16,000.
Hmmm. That's interesting. If I were married and my wife worked where
I work, the only sizeable added expense would be for childcare. If I
wanted to, I could bicycle to work every day (I bicycle to work about
half the time, so at least I am partially environmentally conscious),
I make inexpensive lunches, and I wear the same clothing to work that
I do at home. If my wife did the same, we'd save quite a bit over the
urban couple, I imagine. I don't know if such a setup is possible or
feasible, but it's the type of goal I'd be working towards.
>Granted for the rural couple this is a much larger percentage of the
>income,
Not to mention that $5000 buys you quite a bit more in a rural
community ...
>but personally I would rather that my child receive his/her values
>from me than a stranger if I have a choice.
If your kids only spend six hours a day in childcare how are they not
receiving values from you? They're still with you the rest of the
day, and weekends also. Your kids are going to have to go to grade
school, where they'll spend at least six hours a day away from you --
you will not keep them out of school (you can't legally anyway) just
to ensure that they only get their values from you.
Two women that I work with are working reduced hours so they can spend
more time with their kids, and while they are working their kids are
in childcare. From what I've seen their kids are very well-adjusted.
I don't see how childcare has hurt them in any way.
>So I am not sure if this premise (which is commonly believed) really
>holds up.
It is probably one of those things that has to be taken under
individual consideration.
>>I think the decision to stay at home must be considered very carefully
>>and the option to return to the wage earning force must always be kept
>>open. [...]
>But I see this more a fault of society not valuing women's roles in
>the home than a fault of the woman not pursuing a career outside the
>home. [IMO]
Perhaps, but I don't believe it applies to this point I made:
>>too many [women] who are now unable to provide financially
>>for their families (because their husbands died or they divorced)
>>because they stayed home instead of worked for pay
Since you have a bachelor's degree, you are more than marginally
employable, so even if you decide to stay home and raise your children
instead of pursuing/continuing your medical career, you will still be
able to make a fairly good salary without another wage earner (e.g.
husband). A woman who, let's say, is only marginally employable due
to lack of formal education (e.g. nothing past high school), is in a
much more financially vulnerable position than you if her husband
leaves her or dies and does not provide any or sufficient financial
support because the types of jobs she can get do not pay very well and
in many cases barely cover the cost of supporting a family, if they
cover it at all. This is why I'm an advocate of women pursuing
education and careers outside the home. I'm not trying to devalue
women being homemakers, just trying to point out that it can be
economically unwise.
--gregbo
Larry Margolis
> "She/he pays for her/his share, 50%, of the cost of a relationship
> over the long run. If at the end of the relationship, he/she has
> not paid for 50% of the relationship, then the negligent person
> shall pay the other person the amount of money that will make
> up the difference." Comment: One may want to change the second
> 50% to 45%.
>
> relationship, then at the end of the relationship, he shall pay her $200.
Then he'll have paid $600, and she'll have paid a net of $400.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), MAR...@IBM.COM (csnet)
Ed Falk
>>
>>Yeah, I kinda agree. What if he asks her out, oh ... um ... say on a
>>cruise on a 'love boat', and she can't pay her share and he can? Then
>>what? Should they forego the opportunity of a romantic adventure just
>>to observe principle?
>
>and is willingly paying it, and the receiver of said invitation cannot afford
>the expense but does offer to pay what he/she can and also reciprocates said
>invitation with an invitation that is affordable, then the invitor should
>seize the opportunity and pay the way.
I agree. I haven't got any fetishes about nickle-and-diming a
relationship to death, I just expect "reasonable" reciprocity. If I
can afford to take her to a fancy restraunt and she's broke; that's ok,
she can cook for me sometime. If I can afford to fly us somewhere for
the weekend, she can take me to the Garlic Festival. It's when a woman
*doesn't* reciprocate, but expects to be pampered all the time, that I
get mad.
I went out with a woman who made more money than I did, but still
insisted that I pay for everything, do all the driving, and do all the
cooking (and cleaning up after) when we had dinner in. When I finally
objected, she said that she felt her company was "worth the money" I
was spending on her (so what does that make my company worth?) Those
are the kind of "traditional" roles I find so offensive. Who needs them?
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, fa...@sun.com
In the future, somebody will quote Andy Warhol every 15 minutes.
William Vajk
>In article <14...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes:
>>An independent woman is one who doesn't depend on you. Specifically
>>you, the specific you.
> Not necessarily. If an independent woman and I were SO's to each
>other, we would be dependent on each other in some ways.
Perhaps your definitions and mine simply don't mesh. Perhaps there is
dependence that isn't critical, and some which is. Perhaps you're
picking nits. And note that you're predifining a behavior for a situation
which hasn't happened. Puts me in mind of my eldest daughter who predicted
with great certainty that her children would always do exactly as they
were told.
What are you going to do if you discover that she depends on you for nothing
at all ? Beat her into submission; force her to depend on you for something ?
When Valerie Maslak became conspicuously absent from the net for a long time,
I contacted her and discovered she had a broken leg. She "asked" me to post
to the net the reason for her absence. Did this "independent" woman "depend"
on me ?
>>And while we're in this discussion....when you get embroiled in lengthy
>>definitive behaviors as you have, it is pretty difficult to sort out
>>such behaviors as are actually taking advantage of you rather than
>>dependent.
> So, how would you distiguish between taking advantange of someone
>and being dependent on someone?
My statement was made in the context of a particular discussion and was
applicable to that scenario. Do you have some specific scenario in mind.
Bill.etc
Vince Mous
>In article <51...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes:
> "She/he pays for her/his share, 50%, of the cost of a relationship
> over the long run. If at the end of the relationship, he/she has
> not paid for 50% of the relationship, then the negligent person
> shall pay the other person the amount of money that will make
> up the difference." Comment: One may want to change the second
> 50% to 45%.
> For example, if he has paid $400 and she has paid $600 toward the
>relationship, then at the end of the relationship, he shall pay her $200.
Shouldn't that be $100? i mean, if he pays her $200, he will have paid $600
and she will have paid $600 - $200 = $400, which just reverses the problem!
>Here is another example based on the comment: If she has paid $460 and
>he has paid $540 toward the relationship, then at the end of the
>relationship, she shall not pay him any money.
Or are U saying the guy has to pay more? 8^)
How about this: he pays for what he wants and she pays what she wants. So if
one decides to take the other out somewhere and offers to pay, than that is
kosher. If they decide to split, than that's fine too. The only rule should
be U shouldn't expect anything in return for paying for everything.
"U don't belong to me, and i don't belong to U" - George Michael, Freedom
--
___ __ ___ _ _ ____ ___
| \/ \ / _ \(o) (o)( __]/ _ \ (vi...@mitel.com)
| |\/| |( <_> )\@^@/ _\ \ ( </ / 'SOURIS puisque c'est grave 8^)'
|_| |_| \___/ ={.}=[____) \____] Are you a man or a mouse? BOTH
Daniel Mocsny
>Hmmm. That's interesting. If I were married and my wife worked where
>I work, the only sizeable added expense would be for childcare. If I
>wanted to, I could bicycle to work every day (I bicycle to work about
However, that's not the way it usually works, unless you met your
then-wife-to-be at work. Many two-career couples work in widely
separate locations, particularly after one partner has a job change.
The cost of physical presence at work is very high, all the more
reason to push for expanded telepresence at work.
--
Dan Mocsny
Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
Daniel Mocsny
>I went out with a woman who made more money than I did, but still
>insisted that I pay for everything, do all the driving, and do all the
>cooking (and cleaning up after) when we had dinner in. When I finally
>objected,
Hopefully, next time that will read: "When I *initially* objected"...
>she said that she felt her company was "worth the money" I
>was spending on her (so what does that make my company worth?) Those
>are the kind of "traditional" roles I find so offensive. Who needs them?
Her company was worth to you exactly what you paid for it, obviously.
If she could not get such good deals, she would learn not to expect
them.
The world does not have many people who are nicer than they have to be.
Never forget that.
William Vajk
>The world does not have many people who are nicer than they have to be.
>Never forget that.
Rather depends on whether your glass is half empty or half full.
Bill.etc
Andrew F. Hampe
(Aahzmandius) writes:
|> In article <-S0_X.=@cs.widener.edu> pou...@cs.widener.edu (Joshua
Poulson) writes:
|> >In article <1991Apr23.1...@nas.nasa.gov>
wetware\!dri...@indetech.com writes:
|> >>|> never been able to do a bison. Nice Guys (tm) don't... ;-)
|> >>
|> >>isn't that "a jump to the right and a step to the left,
|> >>bring your legs out wide...."
|> >
|> >But it's the buffalo stance... that really drives you in-say-ay-ay-ane!
|> >
|> >>Lets do the Bison again.....
|> >
|> >We can't leave out bits and pieces, now, can we?
|> >
|> >I am NOT Janet.
|>
|> ....but you play one at midnight.....
Dress them up, send them to college and what DO they DO!?!?
ciao
drieux
rON.
>Rather depends on whether your glass is half empty or half full.
>Bill.etc
Optimist: The glass is half full
Pessimist: The glass is half empty
Realist: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be
Cynic: Drinks the water then asks what the question was.
';-)
rON. (blow...@triton.unm.edu!ariel.unm.edu)
"It is only with the heart that one see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye."
Joshua Poulson
FIRST TIME when I was in High School.
>
For the first time I did NOT dress up.
>
>ciao
>drieux
Until ze next post... "Waiter, waiter, there's a fly in my soup!" "Shut
up! Everyone will want one." "Waiter, waiter, there's a whole bunch of
flies in my soup!" "Don't worry. They'll eat each other!"
--
Joshua R. Poulson [Joshua.R...@cyber.Widener.EDU]
"I speak only for myself, okay?" [pou...@cs.Widener.EDU]
"It is better to play the game and lose than it is to argue about the
instructions." (Me, 1991)
Joshua Poulson
Paul W. Francisco
>>have to be in monetary units? [...]
>
> The 50%/50% has to be in monetary units because, as I said in
>previous messages, I want the man and woman to be protected from each
>other in terms of getting ripped off by the other person and I want the
>man and woman to practice the concept of equality of the sexes. [...]
Ok. Well, I hope you won't be offended (:-)) if I don't particularly
want a woman who is modern and independent by your defintion. It seems
to me that worrying about that all the time would take away from the
happiness I would share with her. I would have to pay too much attention
to making 100% sure that everything was equal, and have less time to pay
attention to her and enjoy being with her. Being happy is much more
important to me than balancing the bills.
--
Paul W. Francisco | And one day, in another time, in another
fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu | world, you will dance across a room and
see a stranger you have known forever...
and it will be me.
-Dark Shadows
Joshua Poulson
>In article <1991Apr29.0...@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes...
>>In article <51...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes:
>>>I like that much better. I have just one question. Does the 50%/50%
>>>have to be in monetary units? [...]
>>
>> The 50%/50% has to be in monetary units because, as I said in
>>previous messages, I want the man and woman to be protected from each
>>other in terms of getting ripped off by the other person and I want the
>>man and woman to practice the concept of equality of the sexes. [...]
>
>Ok. Well, I hope you won't be offended (:-)) if I don't particularly
>want a woman who is modern and independent by your defintion. It seems
>to me that worrying about that all the time would take away from the
>happiness I would share with her. I would have to pay too much attention
>to making 100% sure that everything was equal, and have less time to pay
>attention to her and enjoy being with her. Being happy is much more
>important to me than balancing the bills.
>
This is especially true since a monetary 50/50 split is unfair to the
person who earns less dinero. It should be a 50/50 split of percentage
of Net Personal Product (NPP). The NPP is the money a person has left
over BEFORE entertainment. So a person that's spending 50% of his or
her NPP should expect the other person to spend the same percentage.
How's that sound. That makes it more than fair for people who
personally pay for and own expensive cars and houses to get a fair shake
of the 50/50 deal. Now it's down to haggling over what things are
expenses and what things are "entertainment." Hee hee. Sounds like
marriage after five years... ;-)
The modern MFAM (Mature Functional Adult Male) / MFAF (Mature Functional
Adult Female) financial partnership in lieu of LM (Long-term marriage)
is a heady task, indeed. Turning your favorite MFAPOTOS (Mature
Functional Adult Person Of The Opposite Sex) or MFAPOTSS (... Same Sex)
into a SEU (Spouse Equivalent Unit) involves deep negotiation, financial
arrangements, and at least an HP-12C Business Calculator. ;-)
>--
>Paul W. Francisco | And one day, in another time, in another
>fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu | world, you will dance across a room and
> see a stranger you have known forever...
> and it will be me.
> -Dark Shadows
For more information, see my next book, How to Win Back Your Marriage By
Playing With Monopoly Money (paperback, 1991, Avon Press).
Paul W. Francisco
>This is especially true since a monetary 50/50 split is unfair to the
>person who earns less dinero. It should be a 50/50 split of percentage
>of Net Personal Product (NPP).
Nope. Still don't agree. I don't like the idea of making sure the money
works out one certain way all the time in any fashion. IMO, if anything
should be split 50/50, it is the happiness. Now then, don't get the idea
from this that I am willing to pay every time, or even a vast majority of
the time. I do like being paid for on occassion. But I don't make it a
restriction on happiness. If I have to pay to have a good time and increase
my happiness, I will (if I have the money). I just don't think that counting
receipts is a good way to have a relationship.
Debi Paxton
>
>The modern MFAM (Mature Functional Adult Male) / MFAF (Mature Functional
>Adult Female) financial partnership in lieu of LM (Long-term marriage)
>is a heady task, indeed. Turning your favorite MFAPOTOS (Mature
>Functional Adult Person Of The Opposite Sex) or MFAPOTSS (... Same Sex)
>into a SEU (Spouse Equivalent Unit) involves deep negotiation, financial
>arrangements, and at least an HP-12C Business Calculator. ;-)
>
who pays how much for what and who spends how much time doing which
domestic chores, who will have time for entertainment?
--
these are dangerous days to say what you feel
is to dig your own grave..... (s o'connor)
dpa...@emx.utexas.edu I said what?
Joshua Poulson
>>This is especially true since a monetary 50/50 split is unfair to the
>>person who earns less dinero. It should be a 50/50 split of percentage
>>of Net Personal Product (NPP).
>
>Nope. Still don't agree. I don't like the idea of making sure the money
>works out one certain way all the time in any fashion. IMO, if anything
>should be split 50/50, it is the happiness. Now then, don't get the idea
>from this that I am willing to pay every time, or even a vast majority of
>the time. I do like being paid for on occassion. But I don't make it a
>restriction on happiness. If I have to pay to have a good time and increase
>my happiness, I will (if I have the money). I just don't think that counting
>receipts is a good way to have a relationship.
Paul, you deleted my smilies. This may be the best way to do it but no
one in their right mind would ever do it!
>--
>Paul W. Francisco | And one day, in another time, in another
>fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu | world, you will dance across a room and
> see a stranger you have known forever...
> and it will be me.
> -Dark Shadows
Still deep in sardonism...
William Vajk
>Principles should be decided by the parties in question, no?
Bandwidth.wise and net.foolish ??? :-)
Bill.etc
W. David Rohwer
>relationship to death, I just expect "reasonable" reciprocity. If I
>can afford to take her to a fancy restraunt and she's broke; that's ok,
>she can cook for me sometime. If I can afford to fly us somewhere for
>the weekend, she can take me to the Garlic Festival. It's when a woman
>*doesn't* reciprocate, but expects to be pampered all the time, that I
>get mad.
>
Right. She is acting the old-fashioned way and you are paying
the consequences of her actions. I would not go out with a woman who
expected me to do all the work in the relationship.
>I went out with a woman who made more money than I did, but still
>insisted that I pay for everything, do all the driving, and do all the
>cooking (and cleaning up after) when we had dinner in. When I finally
>objected, she said that she felt her company was "worth the money" I
>was spending on her (so what does that make my company worth?) Those
>are the kind of "traditional" roles I find so offensive. Who needs them?
>
In other words, she expected you to pay for her time, when you
wanted to be with her. She was, in essence, using you for your money.
I hope that you broke off the relationship; it seems like you did.
W. David Rohwer
>>In article <1991Apr13....@netcom.COM>, rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) wrote:
>>> 4. She pays for her share, 50%, of the cost of a date(relationship).
>
>in general, I think that the unless the person who asks says otherwise,
>the person who asks ought to pay. If he ask her out, he's inviting her,
>and ought to pay. If she asks him out, she's inviting him, and ought to pay.
>
I disagree because the man asks the woman out most of the time.
W. David Rohwer
>Yeah, if the invitation comes from one who can easily afford the expense,
>and is willingly paying it, and the receiver of said invitation cannot afford
>the expense but does offer to pay what he/she can and also reciprocates said
>invitation with an invitation that is affordable, then the invitor should
>seize the opportunity and pay the way.
>
I do not see anything wrong with the above except that I would want to
make sure that it evens out by the end of the relationship. If there is no
relationship, then the parties should split the cost 50/50.
Graydon
Can you make a relationship safe? If so, what's the probable cost of this?
Where's 'trust' in your relationship definition?
Graydon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monete me si non anglice loquebar. saun...@qucdn.queensu.ca
saun...@qucdn.bitnet
W. David Rohwer
>In article <1991Apr23.0...@netcom.COM> rohw...@netcom.COM (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>> For example, if he has paid $400 and she has paid $600 toward the
>>relationship, then at the end of the relationship, he shall pay her $200.
>
>Shouldn't that be $100? i mean, if he pays her $200, he will have paid $600
>and she will have paid $600 - $200 = $400, which just reverses the problem!
>
Yes, you are correct. I made an error.
>How about this: he pays for what he wants and she pays what she wants. So if
>one decides to take the other out somewhere and offers to pay, than that is
>kosher. If they decide to split, than that's fine too. The only rule should
>be U shouldn't expect anything in return for paying for everything.
>
I do not agree. Please see my other articles for the reasons.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Seeking Software Engineering position. Inquiries welcome. |
| Please look in misc.jobs.resumes. (BSCS + 3 Yrs. Exp.) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| // W. David Rohwer // |
| \X/ Go A's! \X/ Internet: rohw...@netcom.COM |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michael A. Petonic
>insisted that I pay for everything, do all the driving, and do all the
>cooking (and cleaning up after) when we had dinner in. When I finally
>objected, she said that she felt her company was "worth the money" I
>was spending on her (so what does that make my company worth?) Those
>are the kind of "traditional" roles I find so offensive. Who needs them?
Step on down to Texas, friend, and you'll really see "traditional" roles being
played for all they're worth. Since I've been in Austin (undeniably the
most progressive city in Texas), I've yet to go on a real date where I
wasn't expected to pay. Now, in all fairness, I should say that a girlfriend
and I used to split meals, but that wasn't a "date".
In L.A., on the other hand, most of my dates *insisted* on paying for their
portion of the date.
Attitudes are definately topical.
-MikeP
--
Michael A. Petonic pet...@hal.com +1-512-794-2855
HaL Computer Systems - Director of Custodial Services and Entertainment
Austin, Texas
"If you *have* to live in Texas..."
W. David Rohwer
Yes, you are correct. I made an error. :)
The correct answer is that he shall pay her $100 so that each person
will have paid $500 toward the relationship.