It is true- we tend to choose the love we have known as children- even if it was dysfunctional- and perhaps foiled attempts are a way to solve the original problem so we continue making the same mistakes- until we wake up and deal with the issue.
I have had more men in my life than women and most of those relationships have been positive so don't jump to conclusions about me. Anyone can jump from the particular to the universal but it is sloppy thinking. Raising children alone can be successful but it is more difficult than having a partner so gay couples probably have an advantage there. Yet in the sweetest of marriages I see the tension over division of "labor" among younger couples- mostly based on an impossible ideal with the added stress that each child is a distinct personality and trying to create a democratic atmosphere is a challenge. I used to be more fearless but maybe age has quieted my risk taking plus by this time, most of us have singed some feathers of our plumage. On Jul 13, 1:36 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Jul 13, 5:32 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: ...: > > > You are free to establish any profile you wish whether by recalled > > paraphrase or any other comment or reference made by me and it is > > helpful to know your summation- if it can be called that. It is a fact > > that most women friends my age who are single via choice, divorce or > > widowhood pretty much feel the same with a good deal of humour laced > > with a dash of sarcasm and would rather drink hemlock than be locked > > in another mating. > > Regardless your circle of friends or mine or some random group of > strangers, it works the same for all of us. We develop a certain > psychology with regard mates during our formative years based on the > relationships we see around us. Later in life we all tend to choose > our mates according to the temperament and character we've developed > based on our early families. My maternal family was nuts. So went > the progression of women with whom I chose to get involved -- the last > two were nuttiest of all. I almost committed one till her colleagues > talked me out of it since being committed to a mental health facility > would have ruined her career. Maybe it needed ruining but I didn't go > through with it. > > The other was clinically diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and was > a dry alcholic. Put up with number 1 above for a year. Put up with > number 2 for 3 years. I'm a glutton for punishment. But now I can be > counted among those who would rather hemlock out then be locked in. > > > Happily we live in a country that allows women a > > good deal of freedom depending on circumstances, of course. > > Now I'm confused. Just a few posts ago you were decrying the freedom > that women have today. Can't have it both ways Rigsy. Which one is > it. > > > > > Maybe I dislike needing men at all and wish I still had the energy to > > do the heavy lifting by myself- but I don't. So M is coming back this > > afternoon to try to rescue his work- for which he has been paid > > already- but I have lost confidence in him. Otherwise, I must wait in > > line for a handyman who has worked for several homes in the area. > > I can empathize and sympathize with women who feel a fear of men in > whatever form it takes, but being a man I can never truly experience > it or understand it. However, given what I've learned about > societies over time and how they have virtually all treated their > women, I can and do understand how such fears could be valid and how > they came to be. Were I a woman, I'd probably have committed myself > to a nunnery a long time ago. > > On the other hand, I've also known women who were fearless, full of > self-confidence and unafraid to put themselves out there. These were > women who could walk down the street and make eye contact with > everyone, nodding here, smiling there, gracefully putting off any > unwanted advances, and having no trouble at all gracefully weaving > their daily lives into the fabric of society. These are the women I > admire and in spite of my dysfunctional mating game would love to be > involved with. Never have yet. > > > I have concluded it was idiotic for me to marry at all- just a > > complete waste of time, energy and money- but no one bothered to tell > > me that or they told me too late. > > Aye, me too. But, well, we never came with an instruction manual and > the only guides that existed for our parents were the church and their > parents who were even more screwed up than their children. However > for our generation we had Dr. Spock, Sesame Street, and a plethora of > guides, recommendations and advice on how to raise kids. We had a > potpourri of information from which to choose. If we screwed up it > was because of too much information and no way to process it > cogently. > > > However, motherhood was something I > > took to and am grateful for that experience. As for raising children > > without a male, it is quite possible to do successfully- just think of > > all the war widows over the centuries. > > I'm in agreement with you here. I think either sex can raise children > well on their own. Two sexes are not the necessary ingredient as we > are learning from the children brought up by gay or lesbian couples. > I think the necessary ingredients are patience, willingness to teach, > more patience, learning how to nurture and draw out a child's natural > curiosity while instilling natural values, etc., etc., etc. All the > necessary ingredients for raising a child well have nothing to do with > the sex of the parent or parents. It has to do with more intellectual > and spiritual qualities. > > > All wombs are not created equal, gruff. But that is a different > > subject... > > That's true on so many different levels.
