pregnant 17 year old

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article W9t8f.3742$UF4.1023@fed1read02, Chris says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article 1hh8f.3575$UF4.2261@fed1read02, Chris says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article DqX7f.3498$UF4.3050@fed1read02, Chris says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article 85P7f.3464$UF4.2784@fed1read02, Chris says...


"Jamie Clark" wrote in message
...
Tori,
Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way
way
way
too
long, and nothing you say will change his mind.

And vice versa.

I notice that your foray into the step parents group didn't
amount
to
much,
Chris.

Are you at all serious about getting any insights about your
situation
here on
USENET? Anywhere?

Yes. I am just unwilling to blindly accept whatever advice comes my
way.
Do
you?


That's not what's being proposed.

You didn't even present your story there, even though someone noted
your
angry
tone and asked you to.

I thought that my "story" was clearly stated in my OP. Am I wrong?

Alt.support.step-parents won't see your original post in
misc.kids.pregnancy.
You need to put in a new post there.

We are not communicating our messages. Somehow this conversation got
detoured into talking about some other news group. I am making reference
to
my OP in this thread and this news group where the conversation has
remained.

Read back. I was clearly referring to your recent posts in
alt.support-step-parents (the step parenting group).

Chris, you really do have some communication problems.

Whyever are we discussing Alt.support.step-parents? My post was here and
ONLY here. You might as well mention Support.finances too. Perhaps I do have
communication problems; but at least I know how to stay on topic.


Banty

Circe wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Circe wrote:

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

Women got the franchise in the US in 1920; quite a number of states had
already extended the franchise to women well before then, however.

Women need not vote back in those days because they were protected and
provided for by the laws created by men. I even quoted this from the
person who started this movement.

Moreover,
women in the US were far more "liberated' in the 18th century than their
counterparts TODAY in most of the MIddle East and much of Africa.

You and I must have different definitions of the word "liberated".

neither does modern day Japan.

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

I was just pointing that the following statement is not true:
" Incidentally, I must observe that "unfeminized" countries with low
divorce rates also tend to have at least one of the following
characteristics
(and usually more than one):"

I'm not ATTACKING anyone.

My bad, maybe I should have used the word "criticized"?

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

And I have to respectfully disagree. I do not find a correlation
between enfranchising women and the financial prosperiety of a nation
because nations thrived prior to the enfranchising of women. Also, I
don't think some people consider abortion as "respecting civil rights".

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

Again, I have to disagree. The sex of the political leaders of a nation
do not represent patriarchal views of that nation. To use your example,
India was a patriarchal society when Indira Ghandi was prime minister.

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

If you believe all of these countries are doing well in ALL the categories I
listed above, you need a major reality check.

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant India as "doing well", hence
the parenthesis before the comma.


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

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

I actually believe that the conservatives in this nation (US) are
actually willing to do so and the last I checked, they are the kicking
every democrat and liberal up and down the polls.

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

Again, it all comes down to what you feel is a forced bad decision.

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

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

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

Substitue God with High moral values if you wish. The relationship is
simple, take a look at the impoverished areas in your surroundings and
tell me the marital status of it's occupance. It is simple to see that
feminist idealogy has rotted the brains and opportunity of women and
society in general.

SNIP opinion on Democracy

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

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

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

That reflect directly on society, so try to focus on the family.

Be well, Barbara

Regards...

alath wrote:
But Ericka, I don't think you're going to get anywhere with agsf by
quoting negative effects of marriage and husbands' behavior on women.
For him, that's as it should be.

Well twinkletoes, ask yourself, what recent changes occured in these
women's views to cause them such distress. Oh, by the way, why aren't
their kids getting married and why aren't the parents living with the
kids anymore?

Regards...

"alath" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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

Explain.


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

How so?


I keep wondering if he's a troll. It is hard to believe anyone could be
so freaking dense, and so incredibly persistent with strategies that
are obviously not working. He's like the guy who keeps beating his own
head with a hammer while complaining about why his headache won't go
away. And he's not about to listen to any suggestion that he might
consider putting down the hammer. I suppose there might really be
people out there like him, but not likely outside of institutional
settings. Then again, since he knows it all and obviously has no
intention of reconsidering his actions or listening to anyone else's
suggestions,

I said that when?

it kind of begs the question why he posted on the usenet
to begin with, other than to stir up conflict. And that, by definition,
would make him a troll.

"Circe" wrote in message
oups.com...
alath wrote:
I keep wondering if he's a troll. It is hard to believe anyone could be
so freaking dense, and so incredibly persistent with strategies that
are obviously not working. He's like the guy who keeps beating his own
head with a hammer while complaining about why his headache won't go
away. And he's not about to listen to any suggestion that he might
consider putting down the hammer. I suppose there might really be
people out there like him, but not likely outside of institutional
settings.

Snort, cough I must remember not to read your posts when I'm drinking
hot tea. Damn, you make me laugh!

Then again, since he knows it all and obviously has no
intention of reconsidering his actions or listening to anyone else's
suggestions, it kind of begs the question why he posted on the usenet
to begin with, other than to stir up conflict. And that, by definition,
would make him a troll.

Of course, he doesn't seem to be stirring up conflict in the classic
way that trolls do: that is, he isn't fomenting much dissent among the
people responding to him. The only way for him to keep it going is to
keep weilding the hammer himself.

I've pretty well lost any remaining patience or interest I had in
responding to Chris. If he IS for real, nothing anyone can say to him
is going to help him because he has no interest in being helped.

False conclusion based on a false premise.

And if
he's not for real, arguing with him is a singular waste of time and
bandwidth.
--
Be well, Barbara

Oh go away Chris. This thread is long dead. No one cares.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it!
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to
go explore the world!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

"Jamie Clark" wrote in message
...
Oh go away Chris.

Perhaps you might want to follow your own advice.

This thread is long dead. No one cares.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it!
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to
go explore the world!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

"Chris" wrote in message
news:dFgdf.352$7B.262@fed1read02...

"Jamie Clark" wrote in message
...
Oh go away Chris.

Perhaps you might want to follow your own advice.


My name's not Chris.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it!
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to
go explore the world!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Jamie Clark wrote:
Oh go away Chris. This thread is long dead. No one cares.
--

Jamie

Speak for yourself. I share Chris' ideas and it would be interesting to
see how this whole thing pans out.

Regards...

Chris wrote:
"alath" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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

Explain.

They can't. It is them that have no concept of adult relationships.
Remember, these women believe that their own needs and the needs of
their children come before their husbands. Their husbands are nothing
more than sperm donors and walking ATM machines. Chances are that their
warp mentality stems from being raised in a broken home.

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

How so?

Don't ask, this is coming from someone in a nation with a 50 percent
divorce rate.

By the way, what happened and what did you decide?

Regards...