zengirl Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 We should all be careful when we pick our mates. High risk scenarios are often high reward. I find everything to be quite the opposite. I tend to think that gambling is bad form. I would say in your situation your X clearly decided to stop being a partner. Very few relationships will work properly under that kind of strain. Well, yes, that's precisely what happened. He got wrapped up in his own ego, while I was becoming more "awakened" to use a cliche term, and we broke apart due to that as much as anything. That's legal equality which is great. Which is the only kind of equality you'll see anybody marching for. Forced equality is like communism where they take something from you then give it to someone else to make it equal. I don't like that, it creates hatred where there was none before. You can't treat one group of people special... that's what created the genocide in Rwanda. I'm not going to get into a debate about communism (though the point of it isn't to treat one group special). I'm not a communist, but I see why it was created, to react to radical capitalism. However, humanists have little to do with the communist/capitalist issue. The genocide in Rwanda is racial. Humanists would be staunchly against it. It makes sense to me that mentally healthy children require a lot of parental attention. I think the correct amount varies with the child, but for many 4 hours a day is not sufficient. Whatever a family chooses to do... it should be a solution. I've seen all sorts of child-rearing situations. Really, stay-at-home parents aren't always the best, from what I've seen. I've seen many stay-at-home parents who are less than engaged and many working parents who are entirely engaged. How many women do you think would be happy with a house husband? More than you'd think! But, honestly, just as I wouldn't be okay not working at all, I wouldn't be okay with a husband who did nothing but childcare. (Plenty of jobs are great flex jobs though.) Hmmm... I must have made my point too harshly. I wasn't trying to say one or the other is more lovable. I was saying the approach to a relationship is different. One requiring a mutual trust/partnership which is not present in the other. I believe all relationships are partnerships that require mutual trust. So, to me, you are saying that one is better and more loving just by saying that. You are denigrating the other one, by saying it doesn't require a partnership or a mutual trust. I don't believe my view of relationships is lacking in partnership or trust. My values are just different. I also value self-sufficiency, goals, and balance of people of all genders. I don't believe in "traditional gender roles." (By which, I don't mean that a gal can't choose to be a housewife, but I see no more value in a housewife than a househusband and no less.) Then again, plenty of the best relationships I know aren't male/female anyway; I have loads of gay and transgender friends. It really changes your view of gender roles, I think.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I find everything to be quite the opposite. I tend to think that gambling is bad form. Well, yes, that's precisely what happened. He got wrapped up in his own ego, while I was becoming more "awakened" to use a cliche term, and we broke apart due to that as much as anything. Which is the only kind of equality you'll see anybody marching for. I'm not going to get into a debate about communism (though the point of it isn't to treat one group special). I'm not a communist, but I see why it was created, to react to radical capitalism. However, humanists have little to do with the communist/capitalist issue. The genocide in Rwanda is racial. Humanists would be staunchly against it. I've seen all sorts of child-rearing situations. Really, stay-at-home parents aren't always the best, from what I've seen. I've seen many stay-at-home parents who are less than engaged and many working parents who are entirely engaged. More than you'd think! But, honestly, just as I wouldn't be okay not working at all, I wouldn't be okay with a husband who did nothing but childcare. (Plenty of jobs are great flex jobs though.) I believe all relationships are partnerships that require mutual trust. So, to me, you are saying that one is better and more loving just by saying that. You are denigrating the other one, by saying it doesn't require a partnership or a mutual trust. I don't believe my view of relationships is lacking in partnership or trust. My values are just different. I also value self-sufficiency, goals, and balance of people of all genders. I don't believe in "traditional gender roles." (By which, I don't mean that a gal can't choose to be a housewife, but I see no more value in a housewife than a househusband and no less.) Then again, plenty of the best relationships I know aren't male/female anyway; I have loads of gay and transgender friends. It really changes your view of gender roles, I think. I thought Marxism was an integral part of humanism... along with the denigration of traditional religion... and a few other odd things. I will look that up later. But to the original point of contention... my point is that you can't have a great loving relationship when your constantly guarded against failure. If you want to change jobs... change jobs, if you don't want to work... don't work, but requiring that you constantly be self sufficient because you fear the end of the relationship? That just doesn't seem right to me.
zengirl Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) I thought Marxism was an integral part of humanism... along with the denigration of traditional religion... and a few other odd things. I will look that up later.No, while Marxists and humanists may have common goals in specific instances (they both have a desire to help the impoverished underclasses, however it manifests); they are not the same. (Marxism and communism aren't exactly interchangeable either, though they are similar, naturally.) But to the original point of contention... my point is that you can't have a great loving relationship when your constantly guarded against failure. If you want to change jobs... change jobs, if you don't want to work... don't work, but requiring that you constantly be self sufficient because you fear the end of the relationship? That just doesn't seem right to me.It's not a matter of fear (though yes, I believe bad things can happen when you're not self-sufficient). It's a matter of valuing that self-sufficiency. I want to be just as likely to be the one doing the supporting as the one needing to be supported. I think every human being on the planet should desire self-sufficiency. We won't always achieve it -- we will sometimes need others, but we should never plan it. We should always plan to have more to give than to need to receive. I like to be self-sufficient within a relationship. Period. Whether it ends or it doesn't. Otherwise, I have nothing to offer the relationship -- if I don't come in a whole person (and I think part of being a whole person is being able to take care of yourself financially, emotionally, and spiritually), then I haven't done my job and made myself into someone who is ready to be in the relationship. That's my view. You're the one making it about fear. Now, I do think that people who go into relationships in that incomplete state are taking a risk, and often suffer when the relationship ends (and that suffering is needless). It's seems like a silly gamble to me with no purpose. What's the purpose of demonstrating that you're not able to be a complete person on your own? What's healthy about that? I think it only attracts like -- those mates who also don't want to work on themselves and be healthy and happy as they are before embarking on a full adult relationship. (That doesn't mean I think that's true of all homemakers. I know many homemakers who've made the decision together, after being married, but would be fully capable of taking care of themselves were something to change their circumstances.) Also, think about whether you, as a man, would be comfortable going into a relationship solely supported financially by the other person and with the sole role of supporting them, rather than having any goals/dreams/sufficiency of your own. If you can't say yes, your values don't align with what you're saying, except as antiquated gender roles where women shouldn't be able to have the same basic opportunities as men Edited July 28, 2010 by zengirl
D-Lish Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I'm still a little hazy on how OP's friend is going to "lose her individuality" in this relationship. I think at that age, people are in that important life stage, starting the real search to define themselves. Currently, this young girl is giving up some of her own identity in the relationship by making him the center of her world.
Recommended Posts