posted on October 29, 2000 08:04:43 AM new
Without an author specified (on that site), it is a presumption that KRS did not write it. Even with an author specified, only KRS could definitively say that the author is NOT he, writing under a pseudonym (there or here). But I thought he attributed it to writings received in an email...
C., I'm doing okay! Busy around the house, and getting ready for another little 'procedure' this week. I'm a little tired because I forgot to explain the time change to the dogs last night and they were insistent on breakfast at 4 AM...think I'll take a nap and wait for the hunter to return home with his prey.
posted on October 29, 2000 08:05:01 AM new
There was this man who needed a brain transplant, the doctor came out to talk to the family , he told them we have 2 brains we can use a mans brain for 10,000 or a womans brain for 5,000. They asked why the womans brain was so cheap. The doctor replied Becouse it has been used!
posted on October 29, 2000 08:29:38 AM new
Used UP, you mean.
Only one small part attributed to an email, Beth. Still, a collection of edited information from any number of sources would be considered a creative effort in it's own right. If not, then the prosecution of every student in the world must be imminent.
Strange suggestion to disable right click here by a person, LOL!, who in the post suggesting that, used that tool in order to bring the coupled URL to the thread.
It's worthwhile though, if it's given anyone some way to fill time, and especially so considering that the search is hardly completed. Granting that a housewife role must be somewhat boring even for a dim wit, especially on a grey and bleak day without soap operas and with the television taken over by hubby watching endless football games anyway, anything to occupy the inborn ire can't be bad, as it provides a relief.
posted on October 29, 2000 08:33:50 AM new
Well Beth, it probably would not have mattered. I explained it to Grace, quite carefully and thoroughly...but she failed to understand why it should in any way effect her. C.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
posted on October 29, 2000 08:48:54 AM new
It's all fair use.
Here's that site owner's opinion on copyright:
--------------------
Copyright Information
To those interested,
I have no faith or confidence in the United States Government's ability to enforce copyrights or patents, or anything else for that matter. (My confidence in them "flat-lined" years ago ... gradually ... and with infinite certainty.)
I would not apply to them for succor under any circumstances.
Therefore, anything here is fair game ... but ... if you should profit from any idea expressed herein, you owe me $$ calculated by the following formula:
Decide, in your own mind (without consulting your wife), what my contribution was worth. Then... pay me exactly one half that amount.
posted on October 29, 2000 09:57:33 AM new
KRS: "Oh, no, it's much more simple and natural than that.Women are incapable of making the same quality decisions as men."
I would go on to say that men can, and should make the final decision on matters effecting the direction of a "family." However, men need to learn to listen and take into consideration the input of the female, his spouse. The relationship between men and women as a couple, as a Corporation, is a very finely tuned balance that needs to be acheived, and rest assured that should the female part of this relationship disagree in any aspect of that "decision" prcess, the male must take to heart what his female is saying or that balance turns to an out of balance situation. Women are intuitive for a reason. The male can and should recognize the female's intuitiveness enough to know that her disagreement means something is not right about the decision and it may need further inspection. If he goes on to make a decision that ultimately results in error, it is not her position to throw it back in his face, but to move on and work through any negative result with him - in love.
The role of submission for the female is not the physical aspect of walking behind a man, or not voting, or any other "physical" connotation. It is the understanding and knowledge of her role as help-mate. She is there to support and uphold her male counterpart in every aspect of their direction. What better life could a woman ask for than to have a counterpart that carries the burden and responsibilities of daily life. Her role is only to support, to love and to nurture. The balance that can result from from true submission of the heart is the most wonderful principle, if practiced.
I actually feel strongly that the equality of the female to the male is something that is natural, and shouldn't even be a matter of discussion. I feel that the masses of females have taken the need for the recognition of equality to a ridiculous height. If the balance that results from submission were in practice, there would be no need for women to vocalize and demand recognition of equality. Men would, and some do, uphold that truth "naturally." It's the screaming, bra burning masses that bring fear to the men who do run our society. And in fear, they react negatively. Women don't need to voice their strength. They need to quietly practice it.
posted on October 29, 2000 10:15:58 AM new
James,
You make no point with that. Men and women ARE NOT equal, and submission as compliance goes both ways, hopefully, equally.
posted on October 29, 2000 10:18:06 AM new
I believe that you said that men and woman are equal, specifically "I actually feel strongly that the equality of the female to the male is something that is natural, and shouldn't even be a matter of discussion".
I guess it depends what "equal" means.
Whoops! KRS, I was just addressing Ktsclutter's post.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 29, 2000 10:18 AM ]
posted on October 29, 2000 10:46:37 AM new
Ah, I can now go about the business of my day knowing that KRS is satisfied! Someone finally posted what he wanted to hear!!
posted on October 29, 2000 11:40:55 AM new
Zazzie, no, there is no "Promise Keepers" for my husband. Just the promises he made in his vows when he chose me as his wife, and mine to him. Krs is is right when he says there is no equality without the whole. The compliance is an equality in and of itself. In return for my submission to my husband as the head of our household he has the freedom to love me unconditionally. I'd rather have his unending support and love than to battle day after day about our direction as a couple. Or who is in charge. He has the broader of the set of shoulders between the two of us. I so much prefer him carrying the burdens of everyday life. I am free then to love and support him. Again, it frees him up to support any personal direction or choices made for myself because I do not interfere with his direction for us, or for himself for that matter. I know wherever he drags us, or whatever we go through, he bears that responsibility. And he is very, very aware of the ramicifactions of incorrect decisions. As a result of his ultimate responsibility he is very cautious if I am in disagreement.
As for women who clearly want to be in charge, I just don't know what to say. Personally, I simply do not want the added burden of reconciling myself to the burden of bad or incorrect choices. I am, without a doubt, the weaker of the two. Why? Because I am a woman who's decisions are run by my emotions, as are most women. Men simply are not emotional and are better equipped to make a decision.
Look, life is tough enough for women with having to go out into a world to work, assist in bringing home the bacon, cook and plan meals, clean the house, wash up the babies, etc. Why a woman would want to burden herself further with decision making is beyond me. I'd much rather free myself in that area as it allows me to be the caregiver that our entire make-up is meant to be. As for the physical attributes of submission, quite honestly, I'd rather cook the meals and clean-up than put gas and oil into a car and keep them running, etc. It's not that I can't, it's that I don't have to and I prefer it that way. It's boils down to a trade off. It's one that has worked miracles. It is amazing what the balance in the sexes can bring.
And JamesO, you simply don't have a clue. But love ya anyway.
posted on October 29, 2000 12:00:00 PM new
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
How can a woman ever possibly live once her mate dies. Now I see why they need to join their husband in death in so many cultures. She just would not be able to make a decision and would only fade away due to not knowing what to eat fore her next meal. It is a kindness to merely throw here on the pyre.
What poppycock I have just written.
But I assure you, it is only the message and not the message I have attacked.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
posted on October 29, 2000 12:08:13 PM new
clutter---then you are blessed to have found and implemented what works for you and your relationship. But for krs and anyone to imply that women should be denied the right to vote because of emotions that some men feel disqualify them from having rational thoughts is ridiculous.
In many studies men have been shown to have some form of sexual thought (consciously and sub-consciously ever 30 seconds)--with that information should I state that men can not be allowed to vote as they have no control over their hormones and sexual thoughts
Relationships come in many forms and many of them work for the couple in question--and yours is just one that works for you---but even that may evolve over time. What may work now while you are this age (?) may not work for the 2 of you in 20 years.
Zazzie was not bitter sounding...nor was it a tirade. The fact is she is correct. The concept that what works for any one couple can be universally applied is as ignorant as it is arrogant.
ktsclutter repeatedly generalized about what "a woman" ought to do and how a man should treat "his woman". It begged to be refuted. Just because that works for her and "her man" goes along with it does not mean that it is the "way it shoud be".
While I do sympathize with ktsclutter and her family crisis...I refuse to sit back and allow that tripe to be represented as a universal truth. The two are completely separate issues.
posted on October 29, 2000 02:49:38 PM new
Zazzie, I didn't take anything personal or thought you were bitter in any manner.
Grannyfox, I never said I couldn't make a decision, I said only that I believe women should allow men, both at home and in society, the leadership role.
Nature dictates the role of a woman. Call it tripe if you choose, but before you do, perhaps you might try it?
I can only say that from my experience, the women behind the men have much more power in submission than they will ever achieve with their screaming masses of frothing, flapping mouths.
posted on October 29, 2000 03:01:26 PM new
ktsclutter,
No Thanks. I don't need to try it. I can learn from otherts mistakes on occasion.
I have a relationship. One that I consider equal and very high quality. I don't need to be submissive and manipulative to have input. I also do not have a real big thing about power.
Ted and I have been together for thirty years. We bear our yoke together...the weight is more evenly distributed that way. We are a whole and the line that divides our duties is dynamic to what is needed and who can best provide it. It has and does work well for us. I will not be trying something that was used for centuries to make females non-entities.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 29, 2000 10:18 AM ]