single man looking for single mom

"CME" wrote in message
news:V7Lvd.35944$Ya4.13458@edtnps84...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"CME" wrote in message
news:sOIud.9727$eb3.4717@clgrps13...

"john jones" wrote in message
...
iam single m 41 nc
u can email me if u
like to
tell few thimg

Hey I don't know about other single Moms but this one has standards and
forming complete sentences along with proper spelling just happens to be
one of them. Hmm could be why I'm still single though. lol

Nope......its because you live up in the cold north boonies ;-)

I'm willing to relocate.

Christine

Well I am still in the cold north......just not the boonies.......but can't
wait for the 27th and 80 degree weather. :-)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:58:21 -0500, "Lisa" wrote:


"Joelle" wrote in message
...
You're not really suggesting that his wife has no voice where the
children
are concerned, are you?

Yes I am.

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

That surprises me. I see it quite differently. The children, husband and
wife are a whole, not separate. The step parent must understand that by
becoming a part of the family, they are accepting a parenting role. Would
you marry a man that would not be a part of your children's lives? Would
you marry a man that does not share your same moral values so that he too
could set an example as your children grow and learn? Would you tolerate a
husband that told you not to be involved in parenting his children?

In the above, I am not saying "you" as specifically you, Joelle. These are
just some angles that I considered to be pretty essential for me,
personally, and open up these thoughts for general discussion in a "don't
bite me" sort of way.

Lisa, you're absolutely right. Nobody should get married -- whether
there are existing kids or not -- if they don't share the same basic
beliefs regarding parenting/discipline/values/morals/etc. To ask
someone to enter an existing family but not take a parenting role is
absolutely wrong, for everyone, and probably just means the single
parent wants to remain in control.

lm

"Bjarki 009" wrote in message
...
Joelle wrote:
It is not your girlfriend or wife's job to parent YOUR kids. That's your
job...so why do you need to "teach" her anything?

Any woman in my life is a role model for my children, particularly my
middle
daughter. When I married my wife we hadn't lived together (long distance
relationship) and she had no children. No nieces or nephews near by
either. She
had no idea how to relate to young minds. As my wife, it is indeed her
"job" to
assist in the raising of all the children ... mine, hers, ours. A healthy
marriage is a partnership in all things. After all, if you don't trust
your
partner what are you doing having your kids around them?


I'm with ya buddy,,,100%
LOL....it's been so long I had to actually go looking on the keyboard for
that % sign. That's still not enough motivation to go back to work tho...



I agree that dating someone who is a parent is a plus and it's difficult
for
someone who is not a parent to understand, but sorry, the way of the world
is
that if someone is out "looking for a single mom" red flags all over the
field.

Caution is admirable in most all situations. But "red flag" is a "stop". A
"yellow flag" for "caution" is perhaps a better description. Perhaps they
can
not have children of their own. Perhaps they have a family member who is a
single parent and understand the dynamics of that life style. Perhaps your
negativity and suspicions are based on your experiences with a step
father?
Whatever the reasons, I can't agree to an automatic "red flag" just
because of
a person's likes. Shall we "red flag" all people who have any preconceived
ideas of what they want in a partner?.

Bjarki


I was single until I married for the first time at JUST TURNED (41). My
husband had never been married either. Nor had he had any kids. What's
wrong with us? Nothing. Red Flag? Nope. No one else was good enough but
me

Lisa

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"CME" wrote in message
news:V7Lvd.35944$Ya4.13458@edtnps84...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"CME" wrote in message
news:sOIud.9727$eb3.4717@clgrps13...

"john jones" wrote in message
...
iam single m 41 nc
u can email me if u
like to
tell few thimg

Hey I don't know about other single Moms but this one has standards and
forming complete sentences along with proper spelling just happens to
be one of them. Hmm could be why I'm still single though. lol

Nope......its because you live up in the cold north boonies ;-)

I'm willing to relocate.

Christine

Well I am still in the cold north......just not the boonies.......but
can't wait for the 27th and 80 degree weather. :-)


Yeah I think you need to take me with you, if not just to hear me stop
whining about it.

Christine

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:58:21 -0500, "Lisa" wrote:


"Joelle" wrote in message
...
You're not really suggesting that his wife has no voice where the
children
are concerned, are you?

Yes I am.

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

That surprises me. I see it quite differently. The children, husband and
wife are a whole, not separate. The step parent must understand that by
becoming a part of the family, they are accepting a parenting role. Would
you marry a man that would not be a part of your children's lives? Would
you marry a man that does not share your same moral values so that he too
could set an example as your children grow and learn? Would you tolerate a
husband that told you not to be involved in parenting his children?

In the above, I am not saying "you" as specifically you, Joelle. These are
just some angles that I considered to be pretty essential for me,
personally, and open up these thoughts for general discussion in a "don't
bite me" sort of way.

Lisa

I understand what you're saying, but I think Joelle's got a pretty
strong case. To a significant degree, it depends on the age of the
kids and the situation. My own daughters are 17 and 19, and have a
strong relationship with their father. Should I choose to remarry, the
man in question would need to be clear on the fact that he was *not*
in a parenting role, but rather, in a supportive adult role. Obviously
values & modeling & so forth are important, but they're important to
marriage, as well. Presumably, if you're thinking at all, you're
going to marry someone who sets a good example or you wouldn't be
choosing that person. But it's very, very dangerous ground for a step
parent to tread, to try taking on the parent's role. It's also very
arrogant, in some circumstances. There needs to be respect for the
existing or deceased parent and that parent's role in the child's
life, and there needs to be clear boundaries around the buck stopping
with the child's own parent for discipline and child rearing. That
said, of course, it's sensible for *any* adult to establish their
*own* boundaries.....with respect to themselves.

If the child is very young and has no recollection or awareness of
another parent, it may be reasonable for that stepparent to take on
the role. But boy, you'd sure have to have compatible child rearing
views & styles to make it work.

Cele

On 15 Dec 2004 19:01:18 GMT, EMOVE (Bjarki 009)
wrote:

Cele wrote:
Bjarki wrote:

I've always judges people by the children they raise.

Great. So if something truly horrifying happens to somebody's child, and that
child reacts to what has happened, and acts up, you just automatically assume
they're a bad parent and not a great person?

Geez

No. Where ever did you get that idea? I wrote nothing of the kind.

You wrote that you judge people by the kind of children they raise.
You didn't elaborate. You basically stated that:
state of kids=worth of parent.

The measure of a person is not what happens to them, but how they handle it.

Maybe. Or maybe it's a measure of how much has happened to them, how
recently, how much support they've got, what stage in their life their
at, how their health is, etc. etc. etc.

I would never expect a child who found a murdered parent to have the same life
views as one who didn't. Therefore they will act differently.

This is true. They'd act differently anyway. People are different.
They come into the world different. You're clearly talking nature vs.
nurture, and I don't accept the notion that nurture is everything.
Nature does plenty. Anyone who's raised two kids can see that. They
come into the world hardwired differently, and from the very start,
their experiences therefore impact them differently.

But how each child reacts to the events in their lives, does reflect on the
type of upbringing they have had.

Maybe, in part. Maybe not. Have you heard of "A Child Called It"? The
author's childhood was cited as the second worst case of child abuse
in California history. Absolutely *unspeakable* things were done to
him by his mother, while his father sat by and did nothing and his
siblings were egged on and exhorted to target him further. Yet he is a
successful author, motivational speaker, and parent. Going on his
success as a person, it'd be in keeping with your stated belief that
his parenting, or upbringing, was worthy of being "judged" (your word)
positive.

Otherwise, all children who had the same
experiences would behave the same ways.

No. Children are at least as heavily influenced by their innate
biology as by the events in their lives. It is much more likely to be
biology than nurture that explains why some children of abuse become
dysfunctional and abusive themselves, and others become capable and
nurturing people and parents. And if biology has that much influence
in the direction of successful coping with parental abuse, then it's
reasonable to expect that it has as heavy an influence on dealing with
other aspects of one's life.

This is not the case. Additional
stimuli that each child receives while growing up adds to their personality.

Which personality pre-exists.

And therefore how they cope with life. After all, not all traumatized children
exhibit criminal/neurotic/psychotic personalities.

Pretty well all children exhibit distress in response to trauma *at
some point* and *in some degree* following the event(s). Take a look
at a traumatised child at one time, at another time, and at a third
time, and you'll likely see three different 'reactions' to the same
event, by the same child, especially if the three snapshots are
somewhat distant from each other temporally. What seems 'neurotic' at
one moment can result in greater health down the line. Then again,
some children respond to certain types of trauma with control moves
involving excessive studying and room tidying, and appear to be coping
beautifully, yet lose the plot totally five or ten or twenty years
down the line.

I wish human recovery from trauma was as simple as competent, caring
parenting, but it's not.

So while genetics (such as chemical imbalances) is an important piece in
determining a child's behavior, mental conditioning is a bigger one.

That's been debated for many years. If you've got conclusive evidence,
by all means provide it. Otherwise, that's opinion only. I disagree. I
think the respective impact of nature versus nurture is complex and
entwined in a different way for each person.

So yes, a parent that makes sure their child has the stimuli for the best
balanced personality possible will get more respect from me.

Completely different statement. That would be judging a person by
their commitment to and capacity for parenting. An entirely different
proposition from judging a person by their children. I like it a lot
better. At least, if it involves passing judgement, it involves
passing judgement on an an individual based on what the *same
individual* actually *does*.

They've taken the
steps to earn it. This doesn't mean a better behaved child's parents get more
respect. Their child's stimuli may have been the best imaginable. What has been
accomplished with what's available is the true measure.

Nope. What's been *done* is the true measure. The commitment, energy,
and skill applied to the task tells us something about the parent. The
success of their efforts with any given child does not.

Bjarki

Cele

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:32:47 GMT, Cele wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:58:21 -0500, "Lisa" wrote:


"Joelle" wrote in message
...
You're not really suggesting that his wife has no voice where the
children
are concerned, are you?

Yes I am.

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

That surprises me. I see it quite differently. The children, husband and
wife are a whole, not separate. The step parent must understand that by
becoming a part of the family, they are accepting a parenting role. Would
you marry a man that would not be a part of your children's lives? Would
you marry a man that does not share your same moral values so that he too
could set an example as your children grow and learn? Would you tolerate a
husband that told you not to be involved in parenting his children?

In the above, I am not saying "you" as specifically you, Joelle. These are
just some angles that I considered to be pretty essential for me,
personally, and open up these thoughts for general discussion in a "don't
bite me" sort of way.

Lisa

I understand what you're saying, but I think Joelle's got a pretty
strong case. To a significant degree, it depends on the age of the
kids and the situation. My own daughters are 17 and 19, and have a
strong relationship with their father. Should I choose to remarry, the
man in question would need to be clear on the fact that he was *not*
in a parenting role, but rather, in a supportive adult role. Obviously
values & modeling & so forth are important, but they're important to
marriage, as well. Presumably, if you're thinking at all, you're
going to marry someone who sets a good example or you wouldn't be
choosing that person. But it's very, very dangerous ground for a step
parent to tread, to try taking on the parent's role. It's also very
arrogant, in some circumstances. There needs to be respect for the
existing or deceased parent and that parent's role in the child's
life, and there needs to be clear boundaries around the buck stopping
with the child's own parent for discipline and child rearing. That
said, of course, it's sensible for *any* adult to establish their
*own* boundaries.....with respect to themselves.

With all due respect, your kids are practically grown. It's more an
issue for Paul's son than for your daughters. You'll be a parent
whether either of you like it or not.

If the child is very young and has no recollection or awareness of
another parent, it may be reasonable for that stepparent to take on
the role. But boy, you'd sure have to have compatible child rearing
views & styles to make it work.

And isn't that the point.

lm

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:41:04 -0500, "Lisa" wrote:


I was single until I married for the first time at JUST TURNED (41). My
husband had never been married either. Nor had he had any kids. What's
wrong with us? Nothing. Red Flag? Nope. No one else was good enough but
me

Heheh looks like you two are still honeymooning :-)

lm

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:34:45 GMT, lm
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:32:47 GMT, Cele wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but I think Joelle's got a pretty
strong case. To a significant degree, it depends on the age of the
kids and the situation. My own daughters are 17 and 19, and have a
strong relationship with their father. Should I choose to remarry, the
man in question would need to be clear on the fact that he was *not*
in a parenting role, but rather, in a supportive adult role. Obviously
values & modeling & so forth are important, but they're important to
marriage, as well. Presumably, if you're thinking at all, you're
going to marry someone who sets a good example or you wouldn't be
choosing that person. But it's very, very dangerous ground for a step
parent to tread, to try taking on the parent's role. It's also very
arrogant, in some circumstances. There needs to be respect for the
existing or deceased parent and that parent's role in the child's
life, and there needs to be clear boundaries around the buck stopping
with the child's own parent for discipline and child rearing. That
said, of course, it's sensible for *any* adult to establish their
*own* boundaries.....with respect to themselves.

With all due respect, your kids are practically grown.

That's right. But the one is still at home. And to step in as a parent
with one that age would be nuts. I believe I mentioned that age makes
a difference.

It's more an
issue for Paul's son than for your daughters. You'll be a parent
whether either of you like it or not.

I'll be an adult in the home who cares about him and as he gains
trust, I'll become more involved. But I'll respect *his* and *Paul's*
relationship as the primary one WRT parenting. And I'll be a parent to
the degree that they both are comfortable...which likely will increase
over time, but only if trust is built. You don't just walk in and
start parenting other people's kids.

If the child is very young and has no recollection or awareness of
another parent, it may be reasonable for that stepparent to take on
the role. But boy, you'd sure have to have compatible child rearing
views & styles to make it work.

And isn't that the point.

lm
I expect it wasn't yours. But it was one of mine. :-)

Cele

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:53:51 GMT, Cele wrote:


Maybe. Or maybe it's a measure of how much has happened to them, how
recently, how much support they've got, what stage in their life their

^^^
at, how their health is, etc. etc. etc.


Ah, ****, I need a holiday. What I meant was, 'they're'. I'll be fine.
LOL

Cele