100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: independent ladies | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am fortunate to think like a neurotypical. I'm fortunate to be rational and realistic in my thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. So you get no answer because you can't ask a legitimate question to the statement that you quoted. I did not make a statement of how men treated their families, women, children, etc.... I stated what was a priority for them. So now if you want to ask a question about the statement I made then please do. Otherwise leave it be so the thread can go back to what it is suppose to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. If she said all mean, I would have thought she meant all men. Since she didn't, I did not assume she meant all men. Same with your example. You're seeing it the opposite way. Since she did not say some, you assumed she meant all. You asked me a question and I gave an answer. Now you're telling me you doubt it's because of what I said. If you didn't actually want an answer and would rather go by what you think I meant, why ask to begin with? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And yes if it matters I did mean most because most of the men in past were proud to be "whatever their job in life was" and they made no bones about it.
Most men define themselves from what they do in life even today, It is a masculine trait that psychologists have identified in most men. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If she said all mean, I would have thought she meant all men. Since she didn't, I did not assume she meant all men. Same with your example. You're seeing it the opposite way. Since she did not say some, you assumed she meant all. You asked me a question and I gave an answer. Now you're telling me you doubt it's because of what I said. If you didn't actually want an answer and would rather go by what you think I meant, why ask to begin with? See, I have you and you know it. I'm done watching you squirm. Enjoy your evening. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you get no answer because you can't ask a legitimate question to the statement that you quoted. I did not make a statement of how men treated their families, women, children, etc.... I stated what was a priority for them. So now if you want to ask a question about the statement I made then please do. Otherwise leave it be so the thread can go back to what it is suppose to be. I didn't mention "treatment". Why do you continue to put words into my mouth? I am simply asking you to explain to me a sentence you wrote. Why can't you answer my questions? They are all about that sentence you posted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So can we get back on track here.
Women need to be able to care for themselves as well as they would and can care for others. If they do not do that for themselves they will have problems when their caredfors leave them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Wed 07/20/11 07:04 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. SPIDER WROTE This is very interesting to me. How do you know exactly how every man treated their women and children in the past? Actually you used "treated" in bad grammar form too. I answered this question already and I will not do it again. So stop whatever imaginary argument you are having please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And yes if it matters I did mean most because most of the men in past were proud to be "whatever their job in life was" and they made no bones about it. Most men define themselves from what they do in life even today, It is a masculine trait that psychologists have identified in most men. Not some, but most. klc heard "some". I'm not sure exactly what singmesweet heard, but when I suggested she heard "some", she didn't correct me. So they were both wrong, since most and some are not synonyms. Some indicates an unknown quantity, while most means a quantity between 51 and 99% Still, it seems to me that the whole thing revolves around bias and not reason or grammar. The words themselves gave no clue if you means a few, most or all men. Nothing else you wrote gave context to lead one to believe that you meant "most". And yet you still haven't offered the source of your claim that "Contrary to popular myth MOSTmen of the past did not put their women and children first, at the very least they put their job first. " Similar to their interpretation of your post, this claim is based on bias rather than fact. You don't know this to be true, but you offer this statement as fact and even defended it in this post I have quoted. The fact that you have consistently mischaracterized my queries and posts about this shows me that you are intentionally being evasive and difficult. You know that you made up this claim out of whole cloth and you cannot defend it. So you hoped to get me to shut up by using straw man fallacies. As I mentioned in another thread, I do hate some things in this world and one is straw man fallacies. Admit you made a false claim. Admit that you mischaracterized my posts and we can drop this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. SPIDER WROTE This is very interesting to me. How do you know exactly how every man treated their women and children in the past? Actually you used "treated" in bad grammar form too. I answered this question already and I will not do it again. So stop whatever imaginary argument you are having please. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. SPIDER WROTE This is very interesting to me. How do you know exactly how every man treated their women and children in the past? Actually you used "treated" in bad grammar form too. I answered this question already and I will not do it again. So stop whatever imaginary argument you are having please. 1) How is using "treated" there bad grammar? 2) How is putting your job before your "women and children" (NOT WIVES AND KIDS!!!) not a form of treatment? 3) You haven't given a single answer. Admit you made a false claim. Admit that you mischaracterized my posts and we can drop this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 07/20/11 07:08 PM
|
|
independent women sometimes find themself single for the same reason dependent women do,, essentially,, they arent 'finding' whatever it is they seek in a partner
there is a tendency to define independence in absolutes, as in, not needing anyone else for ANYTHING,, that type of person builds a pretty tall wall that makes it difficult for another person to truly feel comfortable even OFFERING to contibute to their life in any way for fear of 'offending' their prideful sense of independency but independence doesnt have to be an absolute, to me, anyonw who is comfortable in their skin is independent(of others judgments and influence) that means even 'submissive' women who would otherwise be considered dependent,, also have a TYPE of independence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So can we get back on track here. Women need to be able to care for themselves as well as they would and can care for others. If they do not do that for themselves they will have problems when their caredfors leave them. Nope. Admit you made a false claim. Admit that you mischaracterized my posts and we can drop this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No more imaginary arguments.
Lets get back to discussing the advantages of being an independent lady, ladies? You know I was raised to believe that a woman's place is in the house and kitchen, etc... but it is not a good position to be in for the most part. No personal money, no personal life goals, no personal space, etc.... Not good |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. When you make a generalized statement like that without documentation, you are saying that "most" if not "all" men treated their family that way. And...furthermore...that is not true at all. Men of the PAST and PRESENT put their wives and children first by going to work and providing for their food and shelter. 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. Not everyone holds themselves in such high regards as you women seem to. There are many that don't have the self confidence or fortitude that it takes to overcome alot of life's courses of ups and downs. Sometimes putting other people first teaches you how to love yourself and helps you to become a humble person who is compassionate and loving. 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. That was not the point that was mentioned from the onset of this thread. It was about thinking of your partner first and likewise they do the same. It's a very honorable BLENDING of a relationship. That's what a marriage was meant to accomplish. You support your spouse in his endeavors and he supports you in yours. 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. That sounds reasonable but many times over that is not the situation. We live in a disfuctional world surrounded by disfuctional people. We need to learn to love them for what they are and respect them for what they believe in. This "me me" society needs a swift kick in the arse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No more imaginary arguments. Lets get back to discussing the advantages of being an independent lady, ladies? You know I was raised to believe that a woman's place is in the house and kitchen, etc... but it is not a good position to be in for the most part. No personal money, no personal life goals, no personal space, etc.... Not good I have questions about independent ladies. 1) Do they often make general statements smearing "some", "most" or "all" men? 2) Do they often mischaracterize or lie about things others have said or written? 3) Do they often avoid answer questions that reveal their own bias? 4) Do they often refuse to admit their mistakes? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some keep looking in the same places over and over again.... Were are you looking? In the JUNK YARD, check your self. Today there are women that as thay say,(GOT IT GOING ON) I can take care of myself. And say I am not getting married. If thay meet a man, he not 100% of what thay or looking for. GOODBY... All are not looking for a relationship, but a date.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
independent women sometimes find themself single for the same reason dependent women do,, essentially,, they arent 'finding' whatever it is they seek in a partner there is a tendency to define independence in absolutes, as in, not needing anyone else for ANYTHING,, that type of person builds a pretty tall wall that makes it difficult for another person to truly feel comfortable even OFFERING to contibute to their life in any way for fear of 'offending' their prideful sense of independency but independence doesnt have to be an absolute, to me, anyonw who is comfortable in their skin is independent(of others judgments and influence) that means even 'submissive' women who would otherwise be considered dependent,, also have a TYPE of independence Self delusion is a powerful mind control too. Being comfortable in your skin cannot happen if you are subservient to others without having your own identity. Women in these roles lose their identity. They become only mom and wife but never woman standing on her own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
independent women sometimes find themself single for the same reason dependent women do,, essentially,, they arent 'finding' whatever it is they seek in a partner there is a tendency to define independence in absolutes, as in, not needing anyone else for ANYTHING,, that type of person builds a pretty tall wall that makes it difficult for another person to truly feel comfortable even OFFERING to contibute to their life in any way for fear of 'offending' their prideful sense of independency but independence doesnt have to be an absolute, to me, anyonw who is comfortable in their skin is independent(of others judgments and influence) that means even 'submissive' women who would otherwise be considered dependent,, also have a TYPE of independence Self delusion is a powerful mind control too. Being comfortable in your skin cannot happen if you are subservient to others without having your own identity. Women in these roles lose their identity. They become only mom and wife but never woman standing on her own. Interesting. Do these women have a pathological need to mischaracterize other people's words and make up smears against the opposite sex? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some keep looking in the same places over and over again.... Were are you looking? In the JUNK YARD, check your self. Today there are women that as thay say,(GOT IT GOING ON) I can take care of myself. And say I am not getting married. If thay meet a man, he not 100% of what thay or looking for. GOODBY... All are not looking for a relationship, but a date. I found that out the hard way. I always wanted to believe the best of everyone. No one was bad because they wanted to be, it had to be because no one loved them right...lol I had some hard life lessons to learn... I agree one hundred percent, if women required from men that they bring their best all the time, more men would. As for the ladies, independent ladies are that way for many different reasons. Some are not looking for a man, some are not looking for an all the time man, some are not looking for a part time thing at all, etc... There is no one mold. |
|
|
|
|
