I see that love is not what another can do for you, rather what you can do for another, then of course, it's great when ones mate sees it the same way. Of course there should be no score keeping.
Neither did the emancipation of slaves, yet a great many people were prepared to die for that partial solution to the misery of some of the population. Feminists don't expect anyone to kill or die for a partial solution to the misery of women - just painlessly and civilly change a few laws.Felasco:
Feminism is BS in that it doesn't grasp how insufficient equality for women is in addressing the human condition.
I can think of one reason why, maybe. Many of them are mothers and mothers generally want their kids to be safe.Blaggard:
could women somehow be different from men if they ruled the world.
reasonvemotion wrote:Spheres wrote:
I see that love is not what another can do for you, rather what you can do for another, then of course, it's great when ones mate sees it the same way. Of course there should be no score keeping.
Oh what's love got to do, got to do with it
What's love but a second hand emotion
What's love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart
When a heart can be broken
as Tina would say/sing.
It's only logical.
Tina was in an abusive relationship, so I totally understand her cry. But you know, as a woman, you really want someone to truly love you, don't you? Crap I'm a man and I really want that. When I was younger, it wasn't as true as it is now, we grow and hopefully we learn, and I would like to think we are more capable of love, as we get older finally understanding the gift of life, no? 
I am presuming that for you Spheres, love and marriage "go together like a horse and carriage", but look around, marriage today seems to have lost its unique place and some of its peculiar qualities for men and women.Tina was in an abusive relationship, so I totally understand her cry. But you know, as a woman, you really want someone to truly love you, don't you? Crap I'm a man and I really want that. When I was younger, it wasn't as true as it is now, we grow and hopefully we learn, and I would like to think we are more capable of love, as we get older finally understanding the gift of life, no?
reasonvemotion wrote:Spheres wrote:
I am presuming that for you Spheres, love and marriage "go together like a horse and carriage", but look around, marriage today seems to have lost its unique place and some of its peculiar qualities for men and women.Tina was in an abusive relationship, so I totally understand her cry. But you know, as a woman, you really want someone to truly love you, don't you? Crap I'm a man and I really want that. When I was younger, it wasn't as true as it is now, we grow and hopefully we learn, and I would like to think we are more capable of love, as we get older finally understanding the gift of life, no?
Love is not enough to get you through this life, to play the game, or indeed to have a sound, vigorous marriage. Even those that are entered into with "love", (Tina Turner?), are a constant struggle and often fail. I doubt there are many of them, "healthy marriages". Stats will probably confirm a high number of them end in divorce. Marriages that do endure are probably due not to happiness, but out of necessity to maintain a comfortable or reasonable existence, financially. Love is important, but not enough to warrant marriage, I think respect and trust are essential ingredients, both of which are the most difficult to obtain.
I completely hear you, though I've always seen that love incorporates trust and respect, as well as caring, humility, teamwork, understanding, compassion, passion, empathy, sympathy, etc. Any sort of caring for another, that is as unselfish as it can be.
Love: a temporary insanity, curable by marriage. -Ambrose Bierce
He got it right.
Yep, beer, that's beer from last nights bachelor party.Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
..........................................................
.
I completely hear you, though I've always seen that love incorporates trust and respect, as well as caring, humility, teamwork, understanding, compassion, passion, empathy, sympathy, etc. Any sort of caring for another, that is as unselfish as it can be.
Not even this really, it was formed to get and equal days pay for an equal days work and its not even managed this yet across the board. Of course you could say emancipation was the start of feminism so they did manage to get the vote at least.Skip wrote:...
It wasn't intended to reform all the crazy violent men in the world, just stop some of the bullying. ...
Yeah, so since the human race is doomed anyway, women might as well shut up and wait for the end without trying to improve anybody's life in the meantime? What if it takes three more generations? Or ten more generations? They should go back to the kitchen and take off their shoes?Felasco: My point was, the effort will be wasted if crazy violent men blow up civilization. Even the most ardent feminists don't seem to grasp how likely that is.
Everyone's a work in progress, no?reasonvemotion wrote:Spheres wrote:
I completely hear you, though I've always seen that love incorporates trust and respect, as well as caring, humility, teamwork, understanding, compassion, passion, empathy, sympathy, etc. Any sort of caring for another, that is as unselfish as it can be.
Wow......all this one must possess? I rather wonder now at your knowing anyone suitable.
Noreasonvemotion wrote:What makes a good marriage/partnership?
Emotional, physical and psycholgical compatability.
Good sexual communication/interaction, even if the marriage is never consummated (which was a lot less rarer once than it is now)
Is it in essence an ethical tie?
A social contract at base, which if not reflected adequately by the individuals concerned can lead to ethical misgivings and negative ethical ramifications. Individuals of a successful coupling are quite capable of refining and personalising their ethical needs and projections away from formulated marriage/coupling ethics.
What is needed to keep two people together and what would be the unpardonable "sin" in your opinion that would be the cause of a break up.
A:Love, B)disregarding love
Can one person really provide everything the other person wants and needs?
I did.Felasco wrote:I didn't say the human race is doomed.Yeah, so since the human race is doomed anyway,
Which "we" has to find a way? Who has the power to make decisions about society?I said we are doomed unless we find a way to control violent men.
I don't see how feminism can address itself to any problem of society from a subservient place in that society. The control of violent men - or male violence, or militarism or gun-infatuation, or predation , or any of the consequences of these human traits - is not an overnight fix. Societies change slowly, by degrees, one change precipitating the next.I said a true Feminism would address itself to that problem,
I think it will anyway. I think all the gains of the last 5000 years will be lost in the next 50. Civilization didn't change the basic nature of man, but it did teach him many alternative ways to think, behave and organize their activities. Many of them really very bad. Maybe civilization was a mistake, because it didn't solve the control problem, in spite of all those efforts.because without a solution to that problem all other gains will be lost. The time is now, because violent men could destroy everything and everybody by this time tomorrow.
What should they be doing?I agree completely with all the goals of Feminism, but I am accusing traditional Feminist philosophy as lacking in vision. The revolutionary times we live in are far more revolutionary than issues like equal pay for equal work, men doing housework, and other small potatoes things like that.
Should have started a lot sooner, then. Not sure how women could have affected this change - especially without reproductive choice. Ever read Sheri Tepper's novel Gate to Women's Country? http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1043 ... _s_CountryAs it stands we have demonstrated no ability to control violent men, and so the solution may have to involve eliminating the male gender from the face of the Earth, or at least confining it to a small highly controlled population. Something like having 1 per cent fewer men every year for 100 years.
I sincerely doubt that. Why do male-dominated societies value male offspring over female? I suspect the dominant males crave victory over male rivals more than the actual mating opportunity. (Besides, aggressive societies need lots of fresh troops.)It's interesting to note that men might welcome such a plan, as it would put them in an increasingly better position in regards to finding mates, the only thing that men really care about.
Ye-e-es... And also, women had to do many of the previously masculine jobs and proved adept, and gained recognition, confidence, ambition, and a plurality (always, in periods when the attrition of males by armed conflict is faster than the attrition of females by childbirth), which gave them new economic and political power. European governments suddenly had to pay attention to the women's vote on social issues, came gradually to include female representatives in their parliaments and eventually a few powerful ministers and prime ministers. Thatcher aside, they mostly had a positive effect.European powers constantly warred with each other for endless centuries, a condition that seemed to be eternal and unchangeable. The technology used in WWII shifted that consciousness, as it began to sink in that continuing in that direction would mean the inevitable end of all Europe. Revolutions in technology led to revolutions in age old patterns of thought. The previously unthinkable became the accepted group consensus, because survival required it.
