CS and women's greed strikes again..

In article , Krista says...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Anyone reading Krista's message below cannot help but be struck by the
vocabulary she uses. For example, she's a "survivor" of many "emotionally
abusive" relationships. This is the victim mindset that has been
encouraged
by the modern-day feminist movement. It's been cynically used to gain
advantages for women over men -- destroying many families in the process,
and inflicting serious damage on children.

Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see the
research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a happy
single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies in
the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.
=====
And those two "hostile" parents who "can't stand each other" are obviously too
self-serving to realize that raising their children in an intact home and
providing them with a decent and positive childhood should be their first
commitment. The children's happy childhood shouldn't be contingent on either
parent's personal "happiness." When you are comparing data, how about comparing
the data between a single-mother household and an intact household with two
parents who care deeply about their children's welfare and will make whatever
personal sacrifices necessary to see that their childhood is trauma free. That
is after all, your foremost duty, is it not?
=====

In article , Krista says...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Anyone reading Krista's message below cannot help but be struck by the
vocabulary she uses. For example, she's a "survivor" of many "emotionally
abusive" relationships. This is the victim mindset that has been
encouraged
by the modern-day feminist movement. It's been cynically used to gain
advantages for women over men -- destroying many families in the process,
and inflicting serious damage on children.

Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see the
research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a happy
single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies in
the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.
=====
And those two "hostile" parents who "can't stand each other" are obviously too
self-serving to realize that raising their children in an intact home and
providing them with a decent and positive childhood should be their first
commitment. The children's happy childhood shouldn't be contingent on either
parent's personal "happiness." When you are comparing data, how about comparing
the data between a single-mother household and an intact household with two
parents who care deeply about their children's welfare and will make whatever
personal sacrifices necessary to see that their childhood is trauma free. That
is after all, your foremost duty, is it not?
=====

In article , Krista says...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Anyone reading Krista's message below cannot help but be struck by the
vocabulary she uses. For example, she's a "survivor" of many "emotionally
abusive" relationships. This is the victim mindset that has been
encouraged
by the modern-day feminist movement. It's been cynically used to gain
advantages for women over men -- destroying many families in the process,
and inflicting serious damage on children.

Really? And your degree in Psychology is from? And I would like to see the
research that says that a hostile two-parent family is better than a happy
single-parent family.... Because I've seen loads of research that flies in
the face of that. That, in fact, children who live with two parents who
can't stand each other and live with the "daily doses of hostility" are
actually WORSE off even than those in single-mother households.
=====
And those two "hostile" parents who "can't stand each other" are obviously too
self-serving to realize that raising their children in an intact home and
providing them with a decent and positive childhood should be their first
commitment. The children's happy childhood shouldn't be contingent on either
parent's personal "happiness." When you are comparing data, how about comparing
the data between a single-mother household and an intact household with two
parents who care deeply about their children's welfare and will make whatever
personal sacrifices necessary to see that their childhood is trauma free. That
is after all, your foremost duty, is it not?
=====

The point is, fed up with it, like many women that buy into the feminist
agenda, they bail out instead of trying to work it out or seek counseling.
There was no physical abuse so there was nothing to stop her from seeking
counseling or only temporarily remove herself and the children from the home
until the family crisis could be mediated.

Even if the interpretation of abuse is not just physical there was still
nothing to stop her from seeking counseling. She still could have
temporarily removed herself and the child from the home until family
counseling appears to have been success.

The point all goes back to the earlier post that those who leave the
marriage should not expect to take the children or expect any of the family
assets except when a good faith efforts are made without success under some
pretty extreme circumstances (i.e. proven allegations of real abuse)

I do not want to minimize the pain she must have went through and guy sounds
like a real jerk however there is
is no indication from what she posted that she made these efforts before
totally bailing out of the marriage.

And if the counselors recommend divorce?

Should she be able to choose to accept
only one full-time position... that being housewife and mother? If
so, should she expect that he will take care of ALL the financial
needs of the family?

The thread is moving way off topic since the point of her response goes back
to women that leave with the children and the family assets. But to answer
your question, it sounds like the guy was a real jerk, so of course not.
However perhaps parental responsibilities with some sort of trade off
between the two of them could have been worked out in counseling before she
empowered herself to abandon the marriage.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:23:37 -0400, "Don" don@free wrote:


"Krista" wrote in message
m...
"Don" don@free wrote in message
...


Sorry dear but what you describe is not even close to real abuse. I am
not
saying your ex may not have been a royal pain in the ass, but the problem
in
our society today is that a bit of a rough patch in a relationship is
used
as an excuse to bail out of marriage rather than work things out and seek
counseling.

And if the counselors recommend divorce?






What also strikes me as odd is that you had to know his views on what was
expected from you as a traditional house wife prior to marriage? Did you
keep your feminist view of marriage from him until well after you were
married?

Despite feminist propaganda being a house wife and mother is something to
be
very proud of and a honor.

I agree that being a housewife and mother is something to be
very proud of and a honor. It is a full-time job without spousal
help. But what happens when a man partially subscribes to what you
call "feminist propaganda" and wants it both ways? He agrees that
women should work and contribute to the household finances, but also
feels that the house and the children are her sole responsibility?
SHOULD he have it both ways? Should she be able to choose to accept
only one full-time position... that being housewife and mother? If
so, should she expect that he will take care of ALL the financial
needs of the family? And if he doesn't (especially her needs such as
medical, etc...)? I am not sayng it is abuse if he does not... just
wondering how you feel about an inequity.

You may want to decide what you will be and be
clear with any future partners what to expect from you as a wife in a
future
marriage. Otherwise you may find yourself repeating your past history.

To me however your story sounds like another marriage down and a child
without a full time father thanks to feminist brainwashing.

The point is, fed up with it, like many women that buy into the feminist
agenda, they bail out instead of trying to work it out or seek counseling.
There was no physical abuse so there was nothing to stop her from seeking
counseling or only temporarily remove herself and the children from the home
until the family crisis could be mediated.

Even if the interpretation of abuse is not just physical there was still
nothing to stop her from seeking counseling. She still could have
temporarily removed herself and the child from the home until family
counseling appears to have been success.

The point all goes back to the earlier post that those who leave the
marriage should not expect to take the children or expect any of the family
assets except when a good faith efforts are made without success under some
pretty extreme circumstances (i.e. proven allegations of real abuse)

I do not want to minimize the pain she must have went through and guy sounds
like a real jerk however there is
is no indication from what she posted that she made these efforts before
totally bailing out of the marriage.

And if the counselors recommend divorce?

Should she be able to choose to accept
only one full-time position... that being housewife and mother? If
so, should she expect that he will take care of ALL the financial
needs of the family?

The thread is moving way off topic since the point of her response goes back
to women that leave with the children and the family assets. But to answer
your question, it sounds like the guy was a real jerk, so of course not.
However perhaps parental responsibilities with some sort of trade off
between the two of them could have been worked out in counseling before she
empowered herself to abandon the marriage.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:23:37 -0400, "Don" don@free wrote:


"Krista" wrote in message
m...
"Don" don@free wrote in message
...


Sorry dear but what you describe is not even close to real abuse. I am
not
saying your ex may not have been a royal pain in the ass, but the problem
in
our society today is that a bit of a rough patch in a relationship is
used
as an excuse to bail out of marriage rather than work things out and seek
counseling.

And if the counselors recommend divorce?






What also strikes me as odd is that you had to know his views on what was
expected from you as a traditional house wife prior to marriage? Did you
keep your feminist view of marriage from him until well after you were
married?

Despite feminist propaganda being a house wife and mother is something to
be
very proud of and a honor.

I agree that being a housewife and mother is something to be
very proud of and a honor. It is a full-time job without spousal
help. But what happens when a man partially subscribes to what you
call "feminist propaganda" and wants it both ways? He agrees that
women should work and contribute to the household finances, but also
feels that the house and the children are her sole responsibility?
SHOULD he have it both ways? Should she be able to choose to accept
only one full-time position... that being housewife and mother? If
so, should she expect that he will take care of ALL the financial
needs of the family? And if he doesn't (especially her needs such as
medical, etc...)? I am not sayng it is abuse if he does not... just
wondering how you feel about an inequity.

You may want to decide what you will be and be
clear with any future partners what to expect from you as a wife in a
future
marriage. Otherwise you may find yourself repeating your past history.

To me however your story sounds like another marriage down and a child
without a full time father thanks to feminist brainwashing.

The point is, fed up with it, like many women that buy into the feminist
agenda, they bail out instead of trying to work it out or seek counseling.
There was no physical abuse so there was nothing to stop her from seeking
counseling or only temporarily remove herself and the children from the home
until the family crisis could be mediated.

Even if the interpretation of abuse is not just physical there was still
nothing to stop her from seeking counseling. She still could have
temporarily removed herself and the child from the home until family
counseling appears to have been success.

The point all goes back to the earlier post that those who leave the
marriage should not expect to take the children or expect any of the family
assets except when a good faith efforts are made without success under some
pretty extreme circumstances (i.e. proven allegations of real abuse)

I do not want to minimize the pain she must have went through and guy sounds
like a real jerk however there is
is no indication from what she posted that she made these efforts before
totally bailing out of the marriage.

And if the counselors recommend divorce?

Should she be able to choose to accept
only one full-time position... that being housewife and mother? If
so, should she expect that he will take care of ALL the financial
needs of the family?

The thread is moving way off topic since the point of her response goes back
to women that leave with the children and the family assets. But to answer
your question, it sounds like the guy was a real jerk, so of course not.
However perhaps parental responsibilities with some sort of trade off
between the two of them could have been worked out in counseling before she
empowered herself to abandon the marriage.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:23:37 -0400, "Don" don@free wrote:


"Krista" wrote in message
m...
"Don" don@free wrote in message
...


Sorry dear but what you describe is not even close to real abuse. I am
not
saying your ex may not have been a royal pain in the ass, but the problem
in
our society today is that a bit of a rough patch in a relationship is
used
as an excuse to bail out of marriage rather than work things out and seek
counseling.

And if the counselors recommend divorce?






What also strikes me as odd is that you had to know his views on what was
expected from you as a traditional house wife prior to marriage? Did you
keep your feminist view of marriage from him until well after you were
married?

Despite feminist propaganda being a house wife and mother is something to
be
very proud of and a honor.

I agree that being a housewife and mother is something to be
very proud of and a honor. It is a full-time job without spousal
help. But what happens when a man partially subscribes to what you
call "feminist propaganda" and wants it both ways? He agrees that
women should work and contribute to the household finances, but also
feels that the house and the children are her sole responsibility?
SHOULD he have it both ways? Should she be able to choose to accept
only one full-time position... that being housewife and mother? If
so, should she expect that he will take care of ALL the financial
needs of the family? And if he doesn't (especially her needs such as
medical, etc...)? I am not sayng it is abuse if he does not... just
wondering how you feel about an inequity.

You may want to decide what you will be and be
clear with any future partners what to expect from you as a wife in a
future
marriage. Otherwise you may find yourself repeating your past history.

To me however your story sounds like another marriage down and a child
without a full time father thanks to feminist brainwashing.

The point is, fed up with it, like many women that buy into the feminist
agenda, they bail out instead of trying to work it out or seek counseling.
There was no physical abuse so there was nothing to stop her from seeking
counseling or only temporarily remove herself and the children from the home
until the family crisis could be mediated.

Even if the interpretation of abuse is not just physical there was still
nothing to stop her from seeking counseling. She still could have
temporarily removed herself and the child from the home until family
counseling appears to have been success.

The point all goes back to the earlier post that those who leave the
marriage should not expect to take the children or expect any of the family
assets except when a good faith efforts are made without success under some
pretty extreme circumstances (i.e. proven allegations of real abuse)

I do not want to minimize the pain she must have went through and guy sounds
like a real jerk however there is
is no indication from what she posted that she made these efforts before
totally bailing out of the marriage.

And if the counselors recommend divorce?

Should she be able to choose to accept
only one full-time position... that being housewife and mother? If
so, should she expect that he will take care of ALL the financial
needs of the family?

The thread is moving way off topic since the point of her response goes back
to women that leave with the children and the family assets. But to answer
your question, it sounds like the guy was a real jerk, so of course not.
However perhaps parental responsibilities with some sort of trade off
between the two of them could have been worked out in counseling before she
empowered herself to abandon the marriage.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:23:37 -0400, "Don" don@free wrote:


"Krista" wrote in message
m...
"Don" don@free wrote in message
...


Sorry dear but what you describe is not even close to real abuse. I am
not
saying your ex may not have been a royal pain in the ass, but the problem
in
our society today is that a bit of a rough patch in a relationship is
used
as an excuse to bail out of marriage rather than work things out and seek
counseling.

And if the counselors recommend divorce?






What also strikes me as odd is that you had to know his views on what was
expected from you as a traditional house wife prior to marriage? Did you
keep your feminist view of marriage from him until well after you were
married?

Despite feminist propaganda being a house wife and mother is something to
be
very proud of and a honor.

I agree that being a housewife and mother is something to be
very proud of and a honor. It is a full-time job without spousal
help. But what happens when a man partially subscribes to what you
call "feminist propaganda" and wants it both ways? He agrees that
women should work and contribute to the household finances, but also
feels that the house and the children are her sole responsibility?
SHOULD he have it both ways? Should she be able to choose to accept
only one full-time position... that being housewife and mother? If
so, should she expect that he will take care of ALL the financial
needs of the family? And if he doesn't (especially her needs such as
medical, etc...)? I am not sayng it is abuse if he does not... just
wondering how you feel about an inequity.

You may want to decide what you will be and be
clear with any future partners what to expect from you as a wife in a
future
marriage. Otherwise you may find yourself repeating your past history.

To me however your story sounds like another marriage down and a child
without a full time father thanks to feminist brainwashing.

Don wrote:
The thread is moving way off topic since the point of her response goes back
to women that leave with the children and the family assets. But to answer
your question, it sounds like the guy was a real jerk, so of course not.
However perhaps parental responsibilities with some sort of trade off
between the two of them could have been worked out in counseling before she
empowered herself to abandon the marriage.

When divorced women tell it, the guy was always a "real jerk."

None of it can be believed.

Bob





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Don wrote:
The thread is moving way off topic since the point of her response goes back
to women that leave with the children and the family assets. But to answer
your question, it sounds like the guy was a real jerk, so of course not.
However perhaps parental responsibilities with some sort of trade off
between the two of them could have been worked out in counseling before she
empowered herself to abandon the marriage.

When divorced women tell it, the guy was always a "real jerk."

None of it can be believed.

Bob





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Don wrote:
The thread is moving way off topic since the point of her response goes back
to women that leave with the children and the family assets. But to answer
your question, it sounds like the guy was a real jerk, so of course not.
However perhaps parental responsibilities with some sort of trade off
between the two of them could have been worked out in counseling before she
empowered herself to abandon the marriage.

When divorced women tell it, the guy was always a "real jerk."

None of it can be believed.

Bob





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]