100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: independent ladies | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Agreed, how can anyone be happy with a grump in the room. Pleasing yourself is pleasing to others... Yes. If someone is always putting others before themselves, are they actually doing anything to make themselves happy? Sometimes you need to put yourself first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, because you're interested in your needs first, you don't like independent women? You know what I expect from a woman? I expect her to concern herself with my needs first. And I'll do the same for her. That's how I think relationships should work. If you don't agree, then we disagree, simple as that. I agree with that line of thinking. If we each put our mate first than everything else balances out. I would put my job and my health first before anything or anyone else. Contrary to what everyone thinks; you can't live on love and there are no guarantees in life that your mate will be there for you when you need them. Sorry but I have to be practical about life. There are no fairy tale endings in real life. Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. So I am not sure where that myth came from unless it was one of those "manipulation" given to women to make them believe that their "job" which men did not respect was important so she would continue to do it. We all have to love and respect ourselves first before we can love and respect others. We will lose sight of ourselves if we give all of us to someone else. They cannot guarantee they will be there forever even if death is the reason they go. Leaving their partner without a life and without a way to make a life because their "life" is now dead or left or whatever. Women have shown us what happens when you devote your whole life to the man and family without any concern for yourself and when left alone by the man and the children are suppose to leave, then the woman is fifty, unemployable and unwanted. No young woman should ever let this happen having seen it. Watch out for yourself and expect the others to do so too then bring what you bring to the relationship with two fully functioning adults that can support themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, because you're interested in your needs first, you don't like independent women? You know what I expect from a woman? I expect her to concern herself with my needs first. And I'll do the same for her. That's how I think relationships should work. If you don't agree, then we disagree, simple as that. I agree with that line of thinking. If we each put our mate first than everything else balances out. I would put my job and my health first before anything or anyone else. Contrary to what everyone thinks; you can't live on love and there are no guarantees in life that your mate will be there for you when you need them. Sorry but I have to be practical about life. There are no fairy tale endings in real life. Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. So I am not sure where that myth came from unless it was one of those "manipulation" given to women to make them believe that their "job" which men did not respect was important so she would continue to do it. We all have to love and respect ourselves first before we can love and respect others. We will lose sight of ourselves if we give all of us to someone else. They cannot guarantee they will be there forever even if death is the reason they go. Leaving their partner without a life and without a way to make a life because their "life" is now dead or left or whatever. Women have shown us what happens when you devote your whole life to the man and family without any concern for yourself and when left alone by the man and the children are suppose to leave, then the woman is fifty, unemployable and unwanted. No young woman should ever let this happen having seen it. Watch out for yourself and expect the others to do so too then bring what you bring to the relationship with two fully functioning adults that can support themselves. Very well said. You are a wise woman. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 07/20/11 04:31 PM
|
|
Dragoness said... Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. This is very interesting to me. How do you know exactly how every man treated their women and children in the past? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness said... Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. This is very interesting to me. How do you know exactly how every man treated their women and children in the past? Did I say anything about how he treated his wife and children? No. So choose another angle for your argument that you have taken to a personal level as usual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. This is very interesting to me. How do you know exactly how every man treated their women and children in the past? It dont say no every man now do it? Actually I did make it general. So I could be frikisied for the general comment 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness said... Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. This is very interesting to me. How do you know exactly how every man treated their women and children in the past? Did I say anything about how he treated his wife and children? No. So choose another angle for your argument that you have taken to a personal level as usual. Did I say "wife and child"? No. Did I make it personal? No, I asked a question about a statement you made. I think it would be nice if you could calm down and address my question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He's not necessarily looking for an argument. Folks with AS often take things on a 'personal level' via theory of mind. Hard to figure folks like that but truly, not necessarily argumentative, when they question things. I'm not looking for an argument. There is nothing to argue about. She made a statement of fact and she has no evidence to support that statement. It's called a gratuitous statement. I was simply pointing that out and waiting to see if she would correct herself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He's not necessarily looking for an argument. Folks with AS often take things on a 'personal level' via theory of mind. Hard to figure folks like that but truly, not necessarily argumentative, when they question things. I'm not looking for an argument. There is nothing to argue about. She made a statement of fact and she has no evidence to support that statement. It's called a gratuitous statement. I was simply pointing that out and waiting to see if she would correct herself. You didnt ask for an elaboration on her comment however. You decided what it meant to you and challenged it with 'every' and 'exactly' which she did not refer to. It seems like it is you who is looking for an argument. Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first There is no equivocation. This is a blanket statement applied to all men of the "past". I'm asking how she knows the manner in which men of the past treated their "women and children", which according to Dragoness does not mean "wives and children", so I'm not really sure how they were the man's "women and children". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpiderCMB said... It seems like it is you who is looking for an argument. klc said... What did I say that was argumentative? klc said... You decided what it meant to you and challenged it with 'every' and 'exactly' which she did not refer to. Actually, I read what she said and took the plain English meaning of her post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness said... Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. This is very interesting to me. How do you know exactly how every man treated their women and children in the past? Did I say anything about how he treated his wife and children? No. So choose another angle for your argument that you have taken to a personal level as usual. Did I say "wife and child"? No. Did I make it personal? No, I asked a question about a statement you made. I think it would be nice if you could calm down and address my question. It would be nice if you were even arguing a point that is arguable. So you calm down and ask a question that applies to the statement and then we can go from there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He's not necessarily looking for an argument. Folks with AS often take things on a 'personal level' via theory of mind. Hard to figure folks like that but truly, not necessarily argumentative, when they question things. I'm not looking for an argument. There is nothing to argue about. She made a statement of fact and she has no evidence to support that statement. It's called a gratuitous statement. I was simply pointing that out and waiting to see if she would correct herself. You didnt ask for an elaboration on her comment however. You decided what it meant to you and challenged it with 'every' and 'exactly' which she did not refer to. It seems like it is you who is looking for an argument. Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first There is no equivocation. This is a blanket statement applied to all men of the "past". I'm asking how she knows the manner in which men of the past treated their "women and children", which according to Dragoness does not mean "wives and children", so I'm not really sure how they were the man's "women and children". I did not say anything about how men of the past treated their families. So ask a legimate question or expect no answer to one that doesn't apply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
klc said... Can you see that you and I pulled different meanings from the post? No, how would I know that? klc said... Truly, I am not addressing you with any hostility, if thats what you meant. I didn't say you did. Argument doesn't have to mean hostile. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
klc said... Can you see that you and I pulled different meanings from the post? No, how would I know that? Many people read things differently and get different meanings from posts. I'm sure you're aware of that. Do you assume that most people think the same exact thing that you do when reading posts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did not say anything about how men of the past treated their families. So ask a legimate question or expect no answer to one that doesn't apply. Here's some questions: 1) In the below statement, in plain English, implies that this behavior was common to all men. Is that what you intended? If not, would you care to clarify? 2) In the below statement, you talk about "men" and "their women and children". What does that mean exactly? You have repeatedly said you aren't talking about "families" or "wives and children" (neither of which I brought up), so if you weren't talking about those types of relationships, how are the "men" and "their women and children" connected? What about the "men" makes the "women and children" "theirs"? 3) I didn't say "wives and children", you simply accused me of saying it. I didn't say family, you accused me of saying it. Did you accuse me of things as a straw man argument to avoid my question? If not, why did you make the statement about "wives and children" and "families", when I didn't say either? Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
klc said... Can you see that you and I pulled different meanings from the post? No, how would I know that? Many people read things differently and get different meanings from posts. I'm sure you're aware of that. Do you assume that most people think the same exact thing that you do when reading posts? I take the plain English meaning of the sentence. So let's shift focus. I suppose the women are all convinced I took the wrong meaning form the sentence. Fair enough, I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong...If I'm wrong. What does the sentence below mean to you? Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
klc said... Can you see that you and I pulled different meanings from the post? No, how would I know that? because I said this: You didnt ask for an elaboration on her comment however. You decided what it meant to you and challenged it with 'every' and 'exactly' which she did not refer to. She did not say 'every' she left it blank. My assumption was that it meant 'some' by way of generalisation. Im sorry I was unclear. Okay, see that's bad. I know some people try to find the intent of the author by adding or subtracting words, but that's a downward spiral. You are admitting that I would have to add the word "some" to the sentence to get your meaning. Why would I do that, when the plain English meaning is what she posted, I don't know her mind, so it would only be reasonable to believe that she wrote what she meant. You "decided" what her sentence meant. I read it and went by the plain English meaning. About 20 posts could have disappeared in a flash if she had simply said "I meant "some" men". But now I have to ask, she says that "women and children" isn't meant to imply "wives and children" or "families". So what did you decide "their women and children" meant? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
klc said... Can you see that you and I pulled different meanings from the post? No, how would I know that? Many people read things differently and get different meanings from posts. I'm sure you're aware of that. Do you assume that most people think the same exact thing that you do when reading posts? I take the plain English meaning of the sentence. So let's shift focus. I suppose the women are all convinced I took the wrong meaning form the sentence. Fair enough, I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong...If I'm wrong. What does the sentence below mean to you? Contrary to popular myth men of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. It was a very general statement about men in the past, however she did not mention all, so I did not assume she was talking about every single man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many people read things differently and get different meanings from posts. I'm sure you're aware of that. Do you assume that most people think the same exact thing that you do when reading posts? This is quite possible. He has informed us that he has AS. You know, I shouldn't have mentioned that. I don't appreciate being talked about like I'm handicapped. AS doesn't define me, let it rest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 07/20/11 05:46 PM
|
|
It was a very general statement about men in the past, however she did not mention all, so I did not assume she was talking about every single man. So you are looking for an indefinite pronoun "all" and since it's not there, you assume a "some". If I said "women are whores", would you assume that I only meant some women? After all, I didn't put "all" before "women". I doubt you would give me the benefit of the doubt that you gave her, which means your understanding of her post wasn't based on the grammar as you claim, but rather on bias. |
|
|
|
|
