🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message <621e2t$5mv@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <620v2h$ojc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson" <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
>writes:
>>Hmmm...I dunno.  I'm not 'sold' on this whole 'counceling' thing.  It
>seems odd that life went on, mostly happily, for thousands of years
>without professional 'councelors' to tell everybody what they're
>feeling.  I'm not>so sure that I put much stock into that notion.
>
>            ---------
>            Whatever makes you think those couples were HAPPY?   >
Women
>            were unable to divorce in marriages where they couldn't
>            find work outside the home.  Our divorce rate isn't just
>            because divorce is easy, but because women are able to >
make
>            choices other than marriage.

Carol...there you go again with this "women were subjected to male rule"
again.  I don't buy that.  I will never believe that a woman was 'forced'
into marriage because there was no other choice.  There's always an
alternative to NOT getting married--it's called "NOT getting married."  If
they were not sure about the marriage, then they shouldn't have gotten
married.  Don't try to label such females as 'victims'--if they were unsure
about it, then they shouldn't have done it.  I would have to say that they
would have brought that upon theirselves.  And, they shouldn't have brought
down a man with them--they should have allowed him to continue on and find a
woman that was sure about what she wanted.

--John
http://www.pipeline.com/~jrdyson
jrdyson@pipeline.com