Why Men Won't Commit: Men's Atitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage

(Preface and Explanation)A special essay on young, not-yet married men’s attitudes on the timing of marriage finds that men experience few social pressures to marry, gain many of the benefits of marriage by cohabiting with a romantic partner, and are ever more reluctant to commit to marriage in their early adult years.

Available evidence on marriage trends over the past four decades indicates that marriage has declined dramatically as a first living together experience for couples and as a status of parenthood. However, in recent years, there are signs that some marriage-weakening trends are slowing or in some cases leveling off.

Marriage has been much in the news lately, but we hear little about the actual state of marriage. How is marriage faring in American society today? Is it becoming stronger or weaker? Sicker or healthier? Better or worse?

Answers to these questions from official sources have been hard to come by. The federal government issues thousands of reports on nearly every dimension of American life, from what we eat to how many hours we commute each day. But it provides no annual index or report on the state of marriage. Indeed, the National Center for Health Statistics, the federal agency responsible for collecting marriage and divorce data from the states, has scaled back this activity. As a consequence, this important data source has deteriorated. Neither the Congress nor the President has ever convened a bipartisan commission or study group to investigate and report on the state of contemporary marriage. And no private agency, academic institution or private foundation has stepped forward to take on the task of monitoring the indices of marital health.

The neglect of marriage is all the more remarkable because mating and marrying behavior has changed dramatically in recent decades. Although some measures of these changes, such as the rise in unwed childbearing, have been duly noted, discussed and monitored, the state of marriage itself has been slighted. Why this is so remains a great puzzle. Marriage is a fundamental social institution. It is central to the nurture and raising of children. It is the "social glue" that reliably attaches fathers to children. It contributes to the physical, emotional and economic health of men, women and children, and thus to the nation as a whole. It is also one of the most highly prized of all human relationships and a central life goal of most Americans. Knowledge about marriage is especially important to the younger generation of men and women, who grew up in the midst of the divorce revolution in the 1970s and 1980s, and are now approaching their prime marrying years. Without some sense of how marriage is faring in America today, the portrait of the nation’s social health is incomplete.

The National Marriage Project seeks to fill in this missing feature in our portrait of the nation’s social health with The State of Our Unions. The report is divided into two sections. The first section is an essay in a continuing series devoted to exploring the attitudes toward mating and marrying among today’s not-yet-married young. The second section includes what we consider the most important annually or biennially updated indicators related to marriage, divorce, unmarried cohabitation, loss of child centeredness, fragile families with children and teen attitudes about marriage and family. For each area, a key finding is highlighted. These indicators are updated annually and provide opportunities for fresh appraisals each June.

We have used the latest and most reliable data available. We cover the period from 1960 to the present, so these data reflect historical trends over several decades. Most of the data come from the United States Bureau of the Census. All of the data were collected by long established and scientifically reputable institutions that rely on nationally representative samples.

The mating and marrying behavior of today’s young single men is a topic of growing interest in the popular culture and among young women. To a large degree, this popular interest reflects the delay in the age of first marriage. Both men and women are putting off marriage until older ages. The median age of first marriage for men has reached 27, the oldest age in the nation’s history. (The median age for women stands at 25.) However, it is men more often than women who are accused of being "commitment phobic" and dragging their feet about marriage. Our investigation of male attitudes indicates that there is evidence to support this popular view.

The men in this study express a desire to marry and have children sometime in their lives, but they are in no hurry. They enjoy their single life and they experience few of the traditional pressures from church, employers or the society that once encouraged men to marry. Moreover, the sexual revolution and the trend toward cohabitation offer them some of the benefits of marriage without its obligations. If this trend continues, it will not be good news for the many young women who hope to marry and bear children before they begin to face problems associated with declining fertility.

2. They can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying

For the past three years, as part of its Next Generation Program, The National Marriage Project has been conducting research into the attitudes toward dating, mate selection and marriage among young, unmarried adults. Last year, we reported on the results of a national survey of young men and women, ages 20 to 29. This year, we take a closer look at a select group of young, heterosexual, not-yet-married men.

As a first step toward understanding male attitudes about marriage and their timing of entry into first marriage, we conducted focus group discussions among not-yet-married heterosexual men in four major metropolitan areas: northern New Jersey, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Houston. The participants, sixty men in all, came from a variety of religious, ethnic and family backgrounds.

These men range in age from 25-33. The majority are employed full-time, with reported annual incomes between $21-$35,000 and above. Most have had some college or hold a baccalaureate degree or better. No one reports ever being married. Three of the men have a child.

This report highlights key findings from this preliminary study. These findings are impressionistic and exploratory but they provide valuable leads for further research into changing male patterns in the timing and commitment to marriage.

For the young men in these groups, the early adult years are a time of insecure job and residential attachment.

More than half report having changed jobs in the past five years, and twelve said they had been laid off or unemployed during that same time period.

Living arrangements also tend to be fluid and unstable. The men report a variety of living arrangements since leaving the parental home. It is common for a young man to shift from sharing an apartment with roommates to cohabiting with a girlfriend to moving back in with one or both parents and then, perhaps, leaving home and living on his own again. A couple of the men moved back home to help a parent who was sick or recently widowed, and at least one moved back into the parental home because his parents said they would "do everything" for him.

Compared to work or living situations, friendships tend to be a source of more secure and stable attachments. Many of the male participants say they hang out and socialize with friends they have known since their high school or college days. These friendship groups can be male-only or can include women friends as well. These groups go out to clubs, bars, sports events, or spend time together in private apartments.

Men say that they meet women in a variety of ways: through friends; at bars, clubs and Happy Hours; at work; and through casual encounters at the gym or the grocery store. When and where men meet women influences their expectations for a relationship. They view the women they meet in bars and dance clubs as casual sex partners rather than as "marriage material." According to the men, the common and mutual understanding between men and women is that bars are for sexual hookups. "When you meet a girl in a bar, they’re the worst . . . twenty different guys have hit on them already." Clearly, the amount of alcohol consumed is a factor, as is the time of day. For example, when men get together with women during the "happy hour," after work, they may be meeting in a bar, but they engage in a different kind of socializing. They are likely to be in the company of friends and to drink less. Consequently, a woman they meet in a bar after work might be someone they would be interested in for more than casual sex.

In general, a time and place that is conducive to a conversation with a woman is more likely to lead to something more than casual sex, they say. However, several men said that they felt awkward striking up a conversation with a woman. "It’s damn hard to get the courage to go up and talk to someone," one man admitted. Some say that it is easier to get to know a woman if they are introduced by friends. And they are also more likely to contemplate a serious romantic relationship with a woman they meet through mutual friends.

Men are generally opposed to having a romantic relationship with a woman who works in their place of employment. If you break up, they say, "she’s on the other side of the cubicle."

The Internet is an increasingly accepted and popular way to find romantic partners. Some men say that it is good way to generate a high number of prospective candidates. However, no one reported achieving a long-term relationship as the result of an Internet contact, and several commented that deception and misrepresentation were commonplace.

The men say that they rarely ask women out on a date. "That’s the old way," one man commented. "I’ll meet them and we’ll just hang out," one man said. Some contend that women don’t want to be asked out on a formal date because the women themselves are

not ready to be in a serious relationship. Generally, men hold the view that you should become friends and get to know each other by hanging out before you go out on a date.

Men are divided over the question of who should pay for a date. Most believe that men should pay if they are the ones who ask for the date. However, others think that it is acceptable to split the costs of a night out or let her pick up the check occasionally. "Why shouldn’t you both pay?" one man asked, "You both work." Another commented: "Sometimes a woman wants to pay, so she can feel a little independent."

Men expect the women they date to be economically independent and able to "take care of themselves." This represents a major change from earlier times. Moreover, this expectation figures in one of the most common dating complaints among these men. They resent being evaluated on the size of their wallet, their possessions or their earning potential. Therefore, they say, they are turned off by "golddiggers. " Likewise, they avoid "material girls," women who are into "the big house and car."

A woman who wants a baby is another dating turn-off for these men. They fear that she might use them to achieve her goal of having a child and even to "trick" them into fathering a child.

These men also say that they try to avoid going out with women who already have children. Some say they are uncomfortable in the presence of a woman’s children and not eager to be thrust into the role of a play "daddy." Moreover, they feel bad if they establish a relationship with the children and then break up with their mother. Finally, they want to avoid competition and conflict with the children’s biological father. One man says that it is easier to date a woman with children if the father is entirely "out of the picture."

Half of unmarried men, ages 20-29, agree that there are people with whom they would have sex even though they have no interest in marrying them, according to last year’s Gallup survey commissioned by The National Marriage Project. More than half of unmarried men, 20-29, agree that if two people really like each other, it’s all right to have sex even if they have known each other only for a short time. Although young men are more likely to hold these views than young women, there is widespread agreement about the prevalence of casual sex in today’s youthful dating culture. Among all young adults, 20-29, eight in ten agree that it is common for people in their age group to have sex just for fun without any expectation of commitment. This view is more strongly held by those with higher levels of educational attainment.

However, once they have casual sex, men say, they are less respectful and interested in pursuing a relationship with a woman. "If a girl wants it on the first night we go out, I definitely lose respect for her, ‘cause she’s probably doing it with someone else." They are more likely to "take it slow" sexually when they are romantically interested in a woman. Again, this is consistent with the Gallup survey. Seventy-four percent of single men agreed that if you meet someone with whom you think you could have a long-term relationship, you will try to postpone sex until you know each other. Apparently, "waiting" for sex typically means holding off until the fourth or fifth date, though one man said he waited seven months. At the same time, some men expressed the opinion that it was up to the woman to hold them in check. "We’ll always push for more," one said.

Men realize that casual sex places them at risk for STDS, including HIV, and also at risk for unplanned fatherhood. Their concern about "diseases" and pregnancy is further heightened because a significant number admit that they don’t use condoms every time they have sex.

For some, the risk of unwanted fatherhood arouses more worry than the risk of disease. With DNA testing, it is now possible to establish biological paternity beyond a reasonable doubt and thus to hold men legally responsible for the financial support of any child they father. These young men express concern of "spending my life connected to someone I’m not in love with." They worry that a woman who got pregnant after casual sex might deny them the opportunity to get to know and bond with a child whom they are nonetheless legally required to support. Moreover, they are concerned about the financial burden associated with unwed and unplanned fatherhood. "For eighteen years, it’s like $70,000 or $100,000 dollars," one man remarked. Their anxiety is greatest when it concerns the risk of pregnancy that might occur as the result of a one-night stand. As one man put it: "If it’s a girl I just met in a bar, I used to wake up in a cold sweat worrying about pregnancy."

Some men express resentment toward a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy or to have a child without any say-so from the biological father. There is also mistrust of women who may "trap" men into fathering a child by claiming to be sterilized, infertile or on the pill and then to exploit his resources in order to have and rear a child "of her own."

At the same time, these men are generally accepting of the social trend of women having children "on their own." "I could deal with a woman using a sperm donor a lot better than I could deal with a messed up marriage," one man remarked.

Cohabitation is a common and popular form of romantic partnership for young adults today. Slightly more than 44 percent of single men, 20-29, agree with the statement that they would only marry someone if she agreed to live together first. Close to a third of the men in this study say that they have lived with someone in the past or are currently cohabiting with a girlfriend.

There are several reasons why men say that they choose to live with girlfriends. One is to test compatibility for marriage. They believe that living together is a good way to get to know a woman intimately, since "it’s the little things" that can wreck a marriage.

Another reason has to do with the convenience of having a regular sex partner. Living with a woman reduces the risks of sex with a stranger. Men believe that they can dispense with condoms if they are in a monogamous living together relationship. Moreover, they can avoid the time-consuming effort of searching for a sex partner when they have one living at home.

Also, there are economies of scale associated with shared living. One man commented on how helpful it was to have a girlfriend who could look after the house, pay the bills and take care of the dogs when his work took him away from home for extended periods of time. Several others noted that they were better able to save for the purchase of a house if they lived together. For some, this economy was associated with shared plans for future marriage, or at least, future joint home ownership. For others, buying a house was part of the try-out for marital compatibility. "If the house works out, then maybe we’ll talk marriage," one man said.

Moreover, for some men, cohabitation is desirable because they are less answerable to their partner. "We have an interesting relationship," said one cohabiting man. "I come and go as I please . . . as long as she understands, we’re together . . It’s the same as being married. We’re totally happy."

Finally, these men see living together as a way of avoiding an unhappy marriage and eventual divorce. This view is widely shared among people their age. Sixty-two percent of young adults agree that living with someone before marriage is a good way to avoid eventual divorce, according to last year’s Gallup survey for the National Marriage Project. "Everyone I know who’s gotten married quickly – and failed to live together [first] – has gotten divorced," one man said. Another commented: "It should be a law, you should move in together and have a one year trial period. Then you have to wait another year before you have kids."

Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce. They say that their financial assets are better protected if they cohabit rather than marry. They fear that an ex-wife will "take you for all you’ve got" and that "men have more to lose financially than women" from a divorce.

Several men expressed the opinion that there was little difference between the commitment to live together and the commitment to marriage. According to them, marriage is "just a piece of paper," a "legal thing" that you do for family and friends. One observed that cohabitation was just like being married, so why go through the hassle of an expensive ceremony and legal contract? However, this was not the majority view. Most men put marriage on a higher plane of commitment than a living together partnership.

Most of the men in these groups want to marry at some future time in their lives. They expect their marriages to last a life time. Like the majority of young adults today, they are seeking a "soul mate." They envision a soul mate as a woman with whom "you are completely compatible right now," "someone you’re not putting on a show for," the one person you connect with. Notably, they emphasize a soul mate’s willingness to take them as they are and not try to change them.

Until they find a soul mate, however, they are willing to wait. They don’t want to "settle" for second best in their choice of a marriage partner, though they don’t have the same standards for a choice of a live-in girlfriend. Indeed, in some cases, they see her as a second best partner while they continue to look for a soul mate.

Men want to be financially "set" before they marry. For many men, this means owning a house before they marry. However, most of the men in these groups are not yet homeowners, and some are living with a parent, relatives, roommates, or girlfriends.

Most men had no ideal age or timetable for their own eventual marriage. They say: "I’ll know when I’m ready" and "Whatever happens, happens." One man referred jokingly to the Larry King syndrome: you can get married and have kids at any age.

A number of the men stated that having children was the main reason to marry. However, these men are in no great hurry to have children. Unlike women, they have no biological clock to impose a strict time limit on fertility. Several men expressed a desire to have children at a young enough age to enjoy them. As one put it, "I don’t want to be a grandfather to my kid." But for most of these men, having children was a remote life goal. At their age, they did not yet feel ready for the financial responsibilities or disruptions of a child. Some recognized that children would burden their relationship with their partner, and that the presence of children would require compromise and change. Notably, none of these men expressed a burning desire for children, a view that would likely have been different if the study participants had been childless unmarried women of similar age and background.

Today’s young men encounter few, if any, traditional pressures from religion, employers or society to marry. Some men in the group reported mild, teasing pressures from parents who wanted grandchildren, or from married buddies, but they shrugged this off. A few noted that they first began to think about marriage when their friends began to get married. However, since some of their friends’ marriages seemed ill-advised or doomed, they were not unduly influenced by peer pressure to marry either.

Men support the idea of women working outside the home. Indeed, most say that they expect their future wives to work for pay outside the home. Underlying this expectation is the idea that women should be independent-minded and pursue their own career interests. As one man explained: "I like the idea of marrying someone with drive. I would expect her to want her career just as bad as I want mine." However, most of the men describe the advantages of having a working wife in affective rather than strictly financial terms. That is, they think that a wife who works is likely to be a more interesting companion than one who isn’t employed. "She doesn’t have to have a big income, but a career, a life of her own" said one man. "She definitely has to work . . . or in the evenings, it’ll be a one-sided conversation," another observed.

When children come along, however, men think it is preferable for one parent to stay at home or for relatives or grandparents to provide childcare. The overwhelming consensus is that you don’t want to put your children in "stranger care." A number of men say that they will stay home with the children if their wife makes more money and prefers to be the primary breadwinner. However, the men who expressed interest in becoming stay-at-home dads tended to be less well educated and less well employed than other men in the group, so it may be that their relatively poorer employment prospects make the idea of staying at home with children attractive in theory. (However, it remains to be seen whether they would continue to hold this view if they actually had the responsibility of full-time house and childcare, or whether they would prove themselves to be competent primary caregiving parents.)

Like other young adults, these young men are highly critical of divorce. They think couples are too willing to call it quits without trying to work through difficulties in a marriage. As one observed: "One fight, and it’s like ‘I’m out of here.’" Some attribute the readiness to divorce as part of a societal trend toward narcissism, consumerism, and "too many choices." "You used to fall in love with the girl in your high school English class. Now you have more choices and you get married and then three years later, a better one comes along," commented one man. Others believe that both men and women are more independent and need each other less: "Now women are making as much as their husbands so they can say ‘see ya,’" one said. Finally, these men cite the legacy of parental divorce as a factor contributing to a persistently high divorce rate: "We figure ‘hey my parents got divorced, so we can get divorced.’" A couple of men expressed the opinion that living together before marriage lowers the level of commitment to marriage and thus contributes to a greater propensity to divorce, though this was a minority view.

However, despite the strong and pervasive criticism of divorce, the men generally feel that children are better off if their parents divorce rather than stick it out in an unhappy marriage. They concur that this is the better choice even if the couple does not fight but simply has "fallen out of love." They say that "children are smarter than you think and can pick up on parents’ unhappiness." Apparently they believe that a child’s intuition that parents may be "out of love" is more harmful than the actual experience of parental divorce. Clearly, these men consider and evaluate marriage as an intimate couple relationship rather than as a child-rearing partnership. Thus, the perceived quality of couple satisfaction is more important in deciding whether to stay in a marriage than any perceived harms to children that might come from parental divorce.

Overall, men are not optimistic about the future of marriage as a lifelong commitment. They are acutely aware of the risks of divorce. Although they hold out the hope that their generation will work harder at marriage than baby boomers, they say that they are already seeing the first wave of divorces among their friends and this shakes their confidence in the future. Also, they believe that adults continue to change and "grow" and this makes it much harder to stay married to one person for a lifetime. One man said that he thought a contemporary marriage partnership of equals is more difficult to achieve than the traditional marriage with strict gender roles.

As with the respondents in our earlier focus groups and surveys, these men do not believe that there is much that can be done to strengthen marriage on a society-wide basis. However, they do favor education on how to have and sustain successful relationships and marriages.

Men see marriage as a final step in a prolonged process of growing up. This trend has a positive side. Men who marry at older ages are likely to be more financially stable than men in their late teens and early twenties. Further, men who marry at an older age may have gone through a "wild oats" period and may be more dependable and mature husbands and fathers.

At the same time, there is a potentially negative side. Financial stability, often equated with owning a home, comes before marriage in their personal priorities. However, pegging the timing of marriage to mortgage rates may substantially delay marriage, especially in more difficult economic times. Further, a prolonged period of single life may habituate men to the single life. Some of these men have spent a good part of their early adult years living with parents, roommates or alone. They have become accustomed to their own space and routines. They enjoy the freedom of not having to be responsible to anyone else. Like Henry Higgins, they fear losing their solitary pleasures by "letting a woman in their life." More than a few men expressed resentment at women who try to change them. "Women look at men like computers; they always want to upgrade," one said. Some of the men describe marital compatibility as a matter of finding a woman who will "fit into their life." "If you are truly compatible, then you don’t have to change," one man commented. Another man, who was a member of a band, said that he was grateful that his live-in girlfriend didn’t give him a hard time about his late nights and the time he spent socializing with his bandmates after their gig.

In the past, of course, men might drag their feet about getting hitched, but there were pressures to wed. Marriage was associated with growing up and taking on male adult roles and responsibilities. Parents expected sons to leave and set up their own household. Now the pressures are mild to nonexistent. Boys can remain boys indefinitely.

In addition, some of the traditional community and family forces that might encourage single men to learn the habits of compromise, give-and-take, and fitting in with others are weakening as well. Young men today live in a peer world. Some have grown up with only one or no siblings. As young adults, they may have little experience or contact with children in a family household, something that was more common for unmarried young men in times past. Even meal times can be solitary.

Perhaps the most significant factor contributing to male delay of marriage is the rise of cohabitation. Men can get many of the benefits of marriage without the commitment to marriage, or, as they often point out, without exposure to the financial risks of divorce. Cohabitation gives men regular access to the domestic and sexual ministrations of a girlfriend while allowing them greater legal, social and psychological freedom to lead a more independent life and to continue to look around for a better partner.

The men realize that women face time pressures to marry and bear children. At the same time, however, they express little sympathy for women’s circumstances. Several men took the view that men had to be careful because women "want to get married just to have kids." Moreover, as noted above, there was strong sentiment that an unmarried woman who already had a child was less desirable as a date, and certainly less desirable as a prospective marriage partner.

The vast majority of young women today hope to marry and have a family. Men also share this aspiration for marriage and family. However, unlike women, they can postpone marriage for a longer time without losing the chance to have a biological child. Consequently, men’s reluctance to marry makes it harder for peer women who are in their prime marrying years to achieve their desired life goal. As one man put it, "That’s their issue."

That's a nice egalitarian sentiment, but what would would it look like in concrete practice?

You can always try the experiment and post your results here! ;-)

I think it can be proven that, while people may be able to encourage or inspire someone, no one has the actual power to change anyone else.(Was that what you were getting at?)
And why should they? A forced change would only delay an eventual rebellion, if the change doesn't come from within the person themselves.

Yes, I have studied the curses in Genesis 3. Thanks.

I see how you could misunderstand my earlier comment. It was quite general.
Are you familiar with 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 11:11-12?
Those are a good example of what I meant.
Although, In the same chapter you referenced, Genesis 3 (:24 -which is re-stated in Ephesians 5:31) there is also an example, but it is a physical one.

BTW, I thought it was interesting that the word independent never appears in the Bible.

Hope that is somewhat clearer.

"We have too many people saying, thinking, and acting, "It's all about me" That paradigm infiltrates most every part of our society, and it will be our downfall if not corrected soon"

Excellent thought and certainly an important part of any sustained relationship. The other part that has not been really discussed in the 600 plus posts is the importance of cooperation and friendship. The late, great Alfred Adler once said, "..A marriage is 50% chemistry and 50% cooperation..." Often a successful male/female friendship is complementary with a common goal. Not infrequently it has to do with raising a family but it can also include other efforts such as Will and Ariel Durant who wrote and cooperated on a lifetime work of history. In addition, Ronald and Nancy Reagan who focused and cooperated on a political cause would be an example. The types of cooperation are infinite but the essence is a union of effort cemented by friendship.

In the generation before mine it was often the case that the family farm was the center of everyone's existence and hopes. Mom and Dad cooperated in not only raising a family but in keeping it fed and clothed by attending to the needs of a farm. Only a small percentage of us can live on a family farm now, but we can develop and nourish common goals.

"BTW, I thought it was interesting that the word independent never appears in the Bible."

Yep, you're right! (I pulled out the Concordance to be sure! LOL)

The whole concept of "independent" is foreign to biblical thought, for it is God's purpose to bring us to unity (not 'unison'), e.g., per John 17. The concept of Trinity shows perfect unity.

With that thought as a foundation, other concepts become clearer: submission, esteeming others better than self, loving enemies, and so forth.

My, my! You've got me started! LOL

Wow! You're still around here, pontificating more than ever!

All I can say, from what I have scanned in the blink of an eye that I can allot to this thread is, "hear, here!"

One point to add to this thread (maybe I'm adding it; who can read the entire thing in a lifetime): originally, it IS the fault of us men, because we lead, whether we want to or not.

Keep on keepin' on,

Love,
A man striving for selflessness and non-sissyness

...wanted to warn him, but he believed her rants concerning Me so... In a little cell he sits.

Yup, I was married to one of those, too. I was "Victim #1." After she burnt through our marriage, she is now sharpening her claws on "Victim #4." I tried to give #'s 2 and 3 a heads-up, but by the time 4 came around, it was time to let nature run it's course. When this fool confronted me, here was my response:

"I could warn you, but you wouldn't listen. I could kill you, but someone would only take your place. So I do the only other thing I can...I wash my hands of the matter. You may go now. And by the way...the next time you pound on my door, do me a favor and make sure that your armed, because it will save me the effort of planting a weapon on your body for the police to find. Now be a good little puppet and get home so Geppetto can pull some more of your strings."I imagine it too him a while to get the whole Pinnochio bit. She's beeing going for the dumber ones in recent years.

Especially since I became disabled and was told by one lawyer who didn't want my case - "You aren't supposed to collect on your disability. You are just supposed to pay for it for other classes(groups) and then die."

Looks like I won't be the only one on the lawyer-hunt when society collapses ;)

The industry in my state had better hope that I never win a hidiously large powerball jackpot, because if I did, I would then have the resources to dismantle the industry into a thousand pieces, burn said pieces, then scatter their ashes to the wind. No, they don't want to see what I could do to their livelyhood with $80,000,000.

No one asked about changing someone else...I was asking what practice YOU as a woman, in light of your "pulling together" comment, would change in the spirit of cooperation, rather than sitting back waiting for the other side to change.

Yes I am familiar with 1 Cor 11, but that's not what I was getting at with reference to the curse of the fall. I was refering to the internal power struggle that God instituted between man and woman. It's not a matter of independence, it's a matter of leadership and resistance to same. Even church women are content to follow the leadership of their husbands...provided he only leads where she wants to go.

People have a marvelous facility for redefining things so the original intent is of no affect. It's only after you identify those mechanisms, and drop them, that things start to fall into place. My question to you is...what have you identified?

The word "Trinity" never shows up either, but you believe in that concept.

That's the nature of rebellion. People say they want a leader, but they reserve to themselves a veto when things don't go the way they want. The concept is very much "the backseat driver," neither leading, nor following.

I always think it hilarious that the churches are full of single/divorced women secretly praying God will send them a man (when what they are really asking for is a prince charming). That would be fine except none of them happen to be the fairy princess worthy of a prince charming.

Wow! You're still around here, pontificating more than ever!

Pontificating? Yikes! Do my posts come across arrogant as that?!
I'm really sorry, everyone. I didn't realize and I didn't intend for them to at all. :-/

__________________________________________

Hi agrandis.:-)
Thanks for the added point, I haven't read every comment either, but I didn't see this brought up in the ones I did read.
Being a female I guess I would be crazy not to jump at the chance to agree. (Hmmm...or is it -- being a female of course I *won't* agree. ;-D)
I do agree men are to lead, whether they like it or not. But I see this mess as comparable to the apple in the garden. Eve certainly earned her share of the blame there and received it, too.

Love right back at ya, sir. :)

Assuming you aren't just wanting a fight, I'll try to answer. But I have to say, it is a personal decision each individual has to make, and I doubt those I make will make a noticable dent to society at large.

I would continue doing what I do now, I guess. Refuse to play the gender games that only hurt and resolve nothing. Try to be strong enough not to give in to all the goodies the law says it will give me and the NOW groupies claim I'm entitled, too. Let the men be what they are and work on being a help rather than a hindrance. As I said, personal, and prolly not to your liking. But then, that's not any of my concern, as I'm neither a church-going woman, nor secretly praying or looking for God to send me any man.
I'm in a rush and if I didn't give an answer to all your points, sorry.
Good day to you.

I was going to tell you that "pontificate" does not have to imply arrogance, but I looked it up in my Webster's, and I see it could very well imply that! Oh, well, what I meant was, philosophizing as much as ever. Philosophizing is good. :)

Agree that neither men or women are being what they were made to be, and therein is the problem.

I keep hearing an ad on the radio for the Marines. It has a bunch of little girls screaming and grunting in the background, and a young high-schoolish female voice talking about what it takes to like, you know, become a marine. If that ad doesn't demonstrate how screwed up we've become, I don't know what does! I nearly weep whenever I hear it, and now have to quickly turn the radio off whenever it does come on.

"If I might add something?... Would it not be correct to characterize American women much like the Democratic party in that they are content to abide by, and capitalize on, the societal "rules" until those rules prevent them from "winning"...at which point they "expand" the rules just enough to insure the desired outcome.

If I understand correctly, foreign women are much more respectful of the terms of the social contract. "

That is a very insightful way of putting it. Unfortunatly the american women you comment on do not care. They have found the gravy train and are seeking to expand it. The best solution:

Make feminism a thought crime. Reject any sponsor of a feminst show the same way they would not sponsor a pro-nazi show.

The silent treatment being non-marriage material.

I'm never "just wanting a fight," but I did hope to find out whether you had a substantive plan to propose, or were kidding yourself with high-minded platitudes.

Personally, I think the first step would be a common communications format: logic.

I did hope to find out whether you had a substantive plan to propose, or were kidding yourself with high-minded platitudes.

Actually, here's exactly what you've been asking me...

That's a nice egalitarian sentiment, but what would would it look like in concrete practice?...

...What would you change?

I gave an answer on change, and the differences between those we can achieve and those we can't. So what is it, sir? You want what I would change or what I can change? What does it possibly matter what I *would* (i.e.wish I could) change?

Then you came back with this:

I was asking what practice YOU as a woman, in light of your "pulling together" comment, would change in the spirit of cooperation, rather than sitting back waiting for the other side to change.

To which I gave you a list of what I personally CAN and DO change. If you have the opinion that it's equivalent to "sitting back and waiting for the other side to change", well then, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your opinion! Even those that might have unflatteriing implications. ;)

Your last comment included your offer of what I can only assume you consider a substantive plan. Here it is:

Personally, I think the first step would be a common communications format: logic

Bravo! I agree 100%!:-)
Now, please expand on this so that, "in the spirit of cooperation", I can pitch in and do my share.

Tell me, sir, how do you intend to force others to use logic? Which, in this day and age, is about the most monumentally ambitious CHANGE to wish to impose on others. Can you be quite sure you even systematically use logic yourself?

Having everyone communicate logically may be what you WOULD (i.e. Wish to) make happen but it's not something you CAN make happen.

So, in reality, what you stated is not a substantive plan but actually a "high-minded platitude" . I'm afraid your next logical step is to start wringing your hands...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.