🚀 go-pugleaf

Matthew William Damick wrote in message
<6moi7o$856$2@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>...
>
>For me, it's not that I'm asking my fiancee to give up her name so
much
>as she's doing it voluntarily for reasons of perference and deference
for
>me.  Her love for me is such that she wants to be identified and
>connected with me.  Equal in importance here is that my role as a
husband
>requires that I love my wife (and children, when they eventually
happen)
>sacrificially as Christ loved/loves the Chruch.  This isn't about
mere
>feelings.  I'm making a conscious choice to do my utmost (including
>sacrificing myself) to see to the physical and spiritual well-being
of my
>family.  I will commit-promise-vow before God and man to do this
until I
>die.  I'm not taking on a talking possession.  I'll be taking on the
task
>of putting my wife and future children before me b/c of my love of
God
>and for her.
>


If you pull out the mumbo-jumbo about God and Christ, then you have a
great statement of my own personal feelings and commitment to my
spouse, as well.

I married a woman I'd known all my life, and who is still my equal in
every way.  When we married, we committed ourselves to several things,
such as mutual support, mutual policing, both having an input on
decisions affecting the two of us and our future children, raising our
children in a stable family environment, providing for any reasonably
foreseeable mishaps in the future and to not go out catting around.
My wife chose voluntarily, and without discussion, to accept my
surname, and I agreed, without discussion to respect her feelings, but
to be the final arbiter of decisions that affected the two of us, and
that I was competent to make.

Graciously accepting the male lead in the family was not a choice
forced upon her by either me, or any religion, though she still is a
Southern Baptist in many ways.  Anyone who knows her can attest that
she is fully capable of taking care of herself, and would never permit
herself to be walked upon by a husband, child or parent.  If I were to
go off on my own and buy a car, for instance, without discussing it
with her and seeking her input and consent, a living Hell would be
close at hand for me. In the same fashion, she would not consider
doing it herself, either.

Gracious acceptance of a male lead in a family does NOT mean that the
wife is subservient or demeaned in any way.  She merely acknowledges
that the male is the "head" of the family and the final arbiter of
decisions, should this be necessary.

Tom Gauldin, Raleigh NC
-NetMeeting   ils.four11.com,   Live Birdfeeder Action
ICQ 7022136     fax (919) 676-1404
ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/pub/users/scoundrl/home.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Here's to the land of the Longleaf Pine,
The Summerland, where the sun doth shine,
Where the weak grow strong, and the strong grow great,
Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.

mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:

>TarlaStar wrote: 

>: mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:

>[snip]

>: >I've yet to see you demonstrate -how- the reasons are no longer 
>: >relevant.  You make assertions.  Now support them.
>: 
>: I have. The only reason for taking the name of your spouse is to show
>: that you have joined his/her tribe. Since that is no longer a relevant
>: reason, there is no cause for women to give up their names at
>: marriage.

>Provided that taking the man's name was only to ID the wife w/ her 
>husband, you might be right.  However, your over-simplified and limited 
>definition just doesn't align with rality and how many others in this 
>country view the wife adopting the man's name.

I couldn't care less about how others view the adoption of a husband's
name. And my "over-simplified and limited" definition has yet to be
countered with anything aside from opinions and emotionally charged
statements regarding respect and deference....on the part of the
female only.

>You asserted that the wife takes the man's name only to ID herself with 
>that guy and for reasons of alliance.

>I refuted that by pointing out the vast majority of American society 
>(relevant b/c that's the one we're both in, being in the USA and all) 
>doesn't operate under Dark Ages fuedal-clannish mindset you'd like us all 
>to. 

You did? Wow, I musta missed that one too! I don't particularly want
anyone to operate under Dark Ages feudalism, but you seem to want to
carry on the traditions of said Dark Ages by continuing to have women
adopt their spouse's name. How do you escape the mindset, when you
carry on the tradition?

> You presume a mindset on the part of men that don't view the world 
>through your men-are-neanderthals glasses and then rail against your 
>personal creation (perception of reality).  You act shocked when others' 
>view and commentary don't quite match up with your (perhaps intentionally) 
>uniformed perception of reality.

You are presuming many things not in evidence. Listen, Mathew, I've
been on Usenet a long time now. I am very precise in my language
usage. I say exactly what I intend and any presumptions are yours and
yours alone. If you go back and read what I've said, in fact, I have
only asked questions for the most part and pointed out some
differences between world views. I have not given opinions about men
and women, Neandertal or otherwise.
>  
>: >: The need to show that a female is giving up membership in
>: >: her own tribe and taking up membership in another is no longer
>: >: necessary.
>: 
>: >Non-sequitur.  The marriage and taking the surname of the husband in no 
>: >way excommunicates the lady from her own family.  Taking the name of the 
>: >husband does not imply that the wife forsakes her family.  You're 
>: >building strawmen here:
>: 
>: I never said that it implies that the female forsakes her family. I'm
>: trying to point out that since we no longer function as tribes with
>: alliances etc. that we no longer need the identification process that
>: taking a man's name at marriage used to provide.

>Tribal memebership just simply isn't 'on par' with a golf membership.  

And someone implied that it was?

>One is a life-long matter of participation and support, the other is 
>merely participation as long as it entertains you.  If you really see 
>marriage as being that casual and feelings-based, then God help us. 

Are you retarded or just playing a very close troll? When one gave up
membership in one's own tribe to join another, it was very serious
business. Marriage was business, alliance, and public declaration
thereof. In the 20th century in westernized countries we have forsaken
the use of marriage as a political/social alliance between groups and
have turned it into a partnership of equals joined by love and common
interest. It's been that way for about 50-75 years now. It was only a
matter of time until the language began to reflect that change.

>Giving up tribal membership (to join another) was essentially forsaking 
>your former tribe.  The problem here is that mainstream American society 
>just isn't working with the tribal mindset.  My contention is that I'm 
>not wokring from a tribal mindset either, despite your persumption that I am.

I am not presuming anything. I am guessing that since you expect your
wife to take your name that you are participating in a tradition that
is based in tribal behavior that is no longer relevant whether you
know it or not.

>: >I said:  taking the surname of the husband identifies you with him for 
>: >         the reasons previously mentioned.
>: 
>: But you never explained WHY it is only the female that is asked to
>: give up her name. Why the female is the only one that is asked to be
>: deferential, respectful etc.

>For me, it's not that I'm asking my fiancee to give up her name so much 
>as she's doing it voluntarily for reasons of perference and deference for 
>me.  Her love for me is such that she wants to be identified and 
>connected with me.

But you don't feel that the same behavior is necessary on your part?
You have no desire to show her that you prefer and defer to her? You
don't have such a great love that you wish to be identifed and
connected to her? Does she know this?

> Equal in importance here is that my role as a husband 
>requires that I love my wife (and children, when they eventually happen) 
>sacrificially as Christ loved/loves the Chruch.  This isn't about mere 
>feelings.  I'm making a conscious choice to do my utmost (including 
>sacrificing myself) to see to the physical and spiritual well-being of my 
>family.  I will commit-promise-vow before God and man to do this until I 
>die.  I'm not taking on a talking possession.  I'll be taking on the task 
>of putting my wife and future children before me b/c of my love of God 
>and for her.

That's just dandy, but what does it have to do with surnames?
*****
Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius. 
Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
*****

"Thomas Gauldin" <scoundrl@mindspring.com> wrote:

<snip>
>Gracious acceptance of a male lead in a family does NOT mean that the
>wife is subservient or demeaned in any way.  She merely acknowledges
>that the male is the "head" of the family and the final arbiter of
>decisions, should this be necessary.

Mr. Gauldin,  I know you probably have no way of understanding how
offensive a postition like this is to someone outside of your mindset,
but try to step outside of yourself for just a minute. You know how
competent and able you feel you are? You know how strong and sure you
are that you are the proper person to head your family, to make the
decisions if you can't come to agreement? Well, I am just as sure as
you are. And my husband is just as sure as you and I are. Now what? Do
I back down just because I was born with a vagina? Do I assume that he
should lead because someone back in the bowels of time decided that
men were bigger, therefore they should be in charge? Give me one good
reason (outside of some biblical mumbo-jumbo) why I should not
consider my opinions and abilities to make decisions, are not every
bit as good as my husband's. Give me a reason why I should not head my
family. Actually, I'd like a good reason why there has to be a leader
in a partnership.

TarlaStar wrote in message <6mp4m7$ds4@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>"Thomas Gauldin" <scoundrl@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
> Do I back down just because I was born with a vagina? Do I assume >that he
should lead because someone back in the bowels of time >decided that men
were bigger, therefore they should be in charge? Actually, I'd like a good
reason why there has to be a leader
>in a partnership.
><snip>

Tarla, what an intelligent and refreshing Newsgroup response!  My spouse and
I make all our decisions as partners.  We have been a military family for
over 24 years and are a definite minority when it comes to partnerships.  We
enjoy reading your responses and look forward to reading more when we
transfer to Georgia next month.

Aloha!

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:04:04 -0400, "Thomas Gauldin"
<scoundrl@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>How can a man respect someone as a peer if she is wearing 2# of eye
>shadow, bright red lipstick and has half of her breasts exposed at
>work?
>
Which half does she have exposed?

Steve DeGroof wrote:

> jrgrant2TR@EETunity.ncsu.edu (jeni grant) wrote:
>
> :In triangle.general, Thomas Gauldin <scoundrl@mindspring.com> uttered forth:
> :
> :: Women are regulated by hormones, which do more than merely guide the
> :: reproductive process.  The hormones have side effects, such as
> :: moodiness (such as PMS), defensiveness and emotionalism, all of which
> :: tend to cloud the thought process.
> :
> :[snippety doo da]
> :
> :*PLONK*
> :
> Aw, now, you don't really want to killfile Tom. He's one of the few
> sources of comic relief on triangle.general. Remember, he's not really
> an idiot, he just plays one on T.G.  7:^)
>
> SD

That was a great piece of "bait" work Tom wrote.  Made me laugh.  I can hardly
wait to see what his intended target says.

Hi,
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Gauldin <scoundrl@mindspring.com> writes:


 Thomas> Women are regulated by hormones, 

	If you think men are not guided by Hormones, you need a course
 in basic biology. Even an intro level course in physiology would
 teach you better.

	manoj

-- 
 "The final twitch of "Political Correctness" grand peur has to do
 with the age-old fear of antinomian beastliness, lesbians holding
 black masses over copies of Derrida and so forth."  Alexander
 Cockburn
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

TarlaStar (!!!bmyers@ionet.net) wrote:
: mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:

[snips and snails, etc.]

: >Provided that taking the man's name was only to ID the wife w/ her 
: >husband, you might be right.  However, your over-simplified and limited 
: >definition just doesn't align with rality and how many others in this 
: >country view the wife adopting the man's name.
: 
: I couldn't care less about how others view the adoption of a husband's
: name. And my "over-simplified and limited" definition has yet to be
: countered with anything aside from opinions and emotionally charged
: statements regarding respect and deference....on the part of the
: female only.

Based on what you said above, it seems to me that you either don't read 
the entire follow-up before responding, or else you refuse to read for 
content and context.  See below (in my quoted text) where I speak about 
what I believe the role of the husband to be (sacrificially loving his 
family).  I don't know about you, but to me, that at the very leats 
implies my preference and respect for my wife.


: >You asserted that the wife takes the man's name only to ID herself with 
: >that guy and for reasons of alliance.
: 
: >I refuted that by pointing out the vast majority of American society 
: >(relevant b/c that's the one we're both in, being in the USA and all) 
: >doesn't operate under Dark Ages fuedal-clannish mindset you'd like us all 
: >to. 

: You did? Wow, I musta missed that one too! I don't particularly want
: anyone to operate under Dark Ages feudalism, but you seem to want to
: carry on the traditions of said Dark Ages by continuing to have women
: adopt their spouse's name. How do you escape the mindset, when you

I don't think a even hammer would be effective for getting these thoughts 
through to you:

o  you said the only reason for taking the man's name was merely formal 
   ID, alliance, and tribeal membership shifting, or something to that 
   effect.
 
o  I said this may have been true many years back (e.g. the Dark Ages), 
   but is not applicable now, especially to American society, despite your 
   protestations and unbased assertions that your interpretation of The 
   Reason (tm) is exclusively the one you decide upon.
  

: adopt their spouse's name. How do you escape the mindset, when you
: carry on the tradition?

Again, you assume that carrying on a tradition can only be carrying the 
the tradition as you define it to be, rather than how the continuers 
define it for themselves.

[snip]

: You are presuming many things not in evidence. Listen, Mathew, I've
: been on Usenet a long time now. 

Thanks for the info.  I've benn on USENET a goodly time myself. :)
 
: I am very precise in my language usage. 

It's you precision I'm contending with.  You so limit and simplify 
definitions that they no longer represent the commonly accepted 
defintions.  I contend that your world view just doesn't match up 
mainstream society and that your railing against things based on your 
generalities just makes you angrier.

: I say exactly what I intend and any presumptions are yours and
: yours alone. If you go back and read what I've said, in fact, I have
: only asked questions for the most part and pointed out some
: differences between world views. I have not given opinions about men
: and women, Neandertal or otherwise.

In fact, you may have not said "I think" or "I believe" or words to that 
effect.  Rather, you make brash assertions (e.g.: taking the man's name 
can only ever be for the purpose alliance and mere identification) and 
then refuse to support and evidence your claims w/ present-day examples.

[snippage]

: Are you retarded or just playing a very close troll? 

Who's getting emotional now? ;)


: When one gave up
: membership in one's own tribe to join another, it was very serious
: business. 

Which, I believe, I pointed out.  It seemed to me that you vacillated 
between it being serious and casual.  Thank you for clarifying your 
viewpoint (opinion) a bit more.


: Marriage was business, alliance, and public declaration
: thereof. In the 20th century in westernized countries we have forsaken
: the use of marriage as a political/social alliance between groups and
: have turned it into a partnership of equals joined by love and common
: interest. It's been that way for about 50-75 years now. It was only a
: matter of time until the language began to reflect that change.

The difficulty here is that language (that is common usage) doesn't 
reflect this change in the way you claim or want it.  Most folks getting 
married in Western cultures -still- tend to adopt the husband's surname 
for themselves.


: >Giving up tribal membership (to join another) was essentially forsaking 
: >your former tribe.  The problem here is that mainstream American society 
: >just isn't working with the tribal mindset.  My contention is that I'm 
: >not wokring from a tribal mindset either, despite your persumption that I am.
: 
: I am not presuming anything. I am guessing that since you expect your
: wife to take your name that you are participating in a tradition that
: is based in tribal behavior that is no longer relevant whether you
: know it or not.

Well you guess wrong.  You limit yourself to only your perception and 
then project your opinion (excuse me, 'view') on others and declare to 
them that they are unwittingly or blindly following what is only some 
long-gone tribal custom.  You absolutely refuse to believe that someone's 
choices could actually reflect what they tell you they do.

[snippety]

: >For me, it's not that I'm asking my fiancee to give up her name so much 
: >as she's doing it voluntarily for reasons of perference and deference for 
: >me.  Her love for me is such that she wants to be identified and 
: >connected with me.
: 
: But you don't feel that the same behavior is necessary on your part?

Again, I point out that you do not take into account the entire body of 
my post when responding.  Get into that habit, and we'll manage to cut 
down of the sheer volume of our exchanges.

Trust me.  Even being engaged, I want as many folks as possible to 
identify me with my fiancee and vice versa.  The same will hold true when 
we're married.  My prefence is and will ever be for her.  My respect and 
desire (preference) for her was more than evident the first time I asked 
her out on a date.  She'll attest to that.  Even more, my desire and 
prefernce and respect for her ever grows as we grow closer, as i get to 
know her better and better.  I thank God for that.


: You have no desire to show her that you prefer and defer to her? You
: don't have such a great love that you wish to be identifed and
: connected to her? Does she know this?

I did not say that.  See above and below.  I am saving myself to give to 
her and no other.  I will accept the dual servant-leader role of the 
husband described in God's Word.  That is what I expect and what my 
fiancee expects.  It's also what we fervently believe and will vow to 
each other and to God.

: > Equal in importance here is that my role as a husband 
: >requires that I love my wife (and children, when they eventually happen) 
: >sacrificially as Christ loved/loves the Chruch.  This isn't about mere 
: >feelings.  I'm making a conscious choice to do my utmost (including 
: >sacrificing myself) to see to the physical and spiritual well-being of my 
: >family.  I will commit-promise-vow before God and man to do this until I 
: >die.  I'm not taking on a talking possession.  I'll be taking on the task 
: >of putting my wife and future children before me b/c of my love of God 
: >and for her.
: 
: That's just dandy, but what does it have to do with surnames?

Well you asked about what my love for my fiancee entails.  Hers is such 
that she wants to take on my name.

-- 
=== Matt "The ThighMaster" Damick ===========1610==  NC State  
=== mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu =======================  Chemical
=== Theoretical Perfect World Engineering, Ltd. ===  Engineering

TarlaStar wrote in message <6mp4m7$ds4@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>Mr. Gauldin,  I know you probably have no way of understanding how
>offensive a postition like this is to someone outside of your
mindset,
>but try to step outside of yourself for just a minute. You know how
>competent and able you feel you are? You know how strong and sure you
>are that you are the proper person to head your family, to make the
>decisions if you can't come to agreement? Well, I am just as sure as
>you are. And my husband is just as sure as you and I are. Now what?
Do
>I back down just because I was born with a vagina? Do I assume that
he
>should lead because someone back in the bowels of time decided that
>men were bigger, therefore they should be in charge? Give me one good
>reason (outside of some biblical mumbo-jumbo) why I should not
>consider my opinions and abilities to make decisions, are not every
>bit as good as my husband's. Give me a reason why I should not head
my
>family. Actually, I'd like a good reason why there has to be a leader
>in a partnership.
>

Women are regulated by hormones, which do more than merely guide the
reproductive process.  The hormones have side effects, such as
moodiness (such as PMS), defensiveness and emotionalism, all of which
tend to cloud the thought process.  While the emotionalism and
moodiness probably have positive side effects when bonding with
babies, raising children and maintaining the household, they have just
the opposite effect when they crop up in the business world or in any
other situation where a logical decision must be made.  This is
precisely the reason God intended for man to lead the family and for
the wife to show graceful obedience to his leadership.  It is also a
good reason why women do not do as well in a business setting of
leadership.  They call it a glass ceiling, but in reality, they build
it themselves.

Tom Gauldin, Raleigh NC
-NetMeeting   ils.four11.com,   Live Birdfeeder Action
ICQ 7022136     fax (919) 676-1404
ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/pub/users/scoundrl/home.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Here's to the land of the Longleaf Pine,
The Summerland, where the sun doth shine,
Where the weak grow strong, and the strong grow great,
Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.

Thomas Gauldin (scoundrl@mindspring.com) wrote:
: other situation where a logical decision must be made.  This is
: precisely the reason God intended for man to lead the family and for
: the wife to show graceful obedience to his leadership.  It is also a
:

A little out of character, eh, Tom? "Reason God intended for man?"
did the Jehovah's Witnesses get to you or something?

--paul 

In triangle.general, Thomas Gauldin <scoundrl@mindspring.com> uttered forth:

: Women are regulated by hormones, which do more than merely guide the
: reproductive process.  The hormones have side effects, such as
: moodiness (such as PMS), defensiveness and emotionalism, all of which
: tend to cloud the thought process.  

[snippety doo da]

*PLONK*

-jeni-

..this plonk is _not_ brought to you by PMS...

-- 
remove the spam-like product to reply

i've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets / looking for a savior
underneath these dirty sheets / i've been raising up my hands / drive
another nail in / just what GOD needs / one more victim / --Tori Amos
                                                             [ jeni grant ]

Thomas Gauldin wrote:
>This is
>precisely the reason God intended for man to lead the family and for
>the wife to show graceful obedience to his leadership.  

I thought you were an athiest...
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::  Ryan Maas  Apex, NC  ::  Good judgement comes from experience.  ::
::  maas @ pagesz . net  ::  Experience comes from bad judgement.   ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;

ellensmith wrote:

> >How can a man respect someone as a peer if she is wearing 2# of eye
> >shadow, bright red lipstick and has half of her breasts exposed at
> >work?

> Which half does she have exposed?

And how large are they?

Steve Crisp

"Thomas Gauldin" <scoundrl@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Well, I agree that men are regulate by hormones when they're "that
>way," but women are subject to a much wider range of hormone-driven
>emotions and moods.  At least men are predictable.

Some women are, some aren't. You're generalizing and that's gonna get
you into more arguments.

>Jeni and other gals who believe so strongly in woman's liberation,
>let's work on this question:  Do you EVER wear short dresses, wear
>makeup, wear tight shorts or tight blouses or spend a lot of time on
>your hair?  

No. That all sounds rather uncomfortable.

Now what?

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:38:37 -0400, Thomas Gauldin 
<scoundrl@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Women are regulated by hormones, which do more than merely guide the
>reproductive process.  The hormones have side effects, such as
>moodiness (such as PMS), defensiveness and emotionalism, all of which
>tend to cloud the thought process.  While the emotionalism and
>moodiness probably have positive side effects when bonding with
>babies, raising children and maintaining the household, they have just
>the opposite effect when they crop up in the business world or in any
>other situation where a logical decision must be made.  This is
>precisely the reason God intended for man to lead the family and for
>the wife to show graceful obedience to his leadership.  It is also a
>good reason why women do not do as well in a business setting of
>leadership.  They call it a glass ceiling, but in reality, they build
>it themselves.

Here we see that Mr. Gauldin is not above "getting religion" to make a
point, at least when he's losing.

Tom: If women are the ones ruled by emotions, then why are men responsible
for most of the wars, murder-suicides, mass murders, forest fires, Usenet
SPAM, and congressional bills in our society?  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ Derek Mark Edding ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ drek@pagesz.net ~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No offense too minor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In triangle.general Thomas Gauldin <scoundrl@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Well, I agree that men are regulate by hormones when they're "that
: way," but women are subject to a much wider range of hormone-driven
: emotions and moods.  At least men are predictable.

<snicker>

men are no more predictable than women are.  i've learned that one the hard
way.

: Jeni and other gals who believe so strongly in woman's liberation,
: let's work on this question:  Do you EVER wear short dresses, wear
: makeup, wear tight shorts or tight blouses or spend a lot of time on
: your hair?  

<looks down.  shorts, t-shirt. sneakers>

generally not voluntarily. =)

i fail to see what wearing dresses has to do with women's lib, anyhow.  if 
a woman wants to wear a skirt, she can.  heck, if a man wants to wear a skirt, 
so be it.  one of my male friends in high school swore that the most 
comfortable thing in the world was a long skirt and boxers.

a woman should be able to wear whatever makes her comfortable and confident
in herself, and her femiminity and take on feminism should not be judged
from what she wears.

in the same way, a man should be able to wear whatever he wants, and his
masculinity, political views, etc, should not be judged from such, either.

: Women, in general, WANT to operate in both the world of
: the man AND in the world of the woman- but to do it selectively as it
: suits them.

just what do you define as "the world of the man" and the "world of the
woman, just out of curiousity?

i look to operate in a world made up of people. =)

: I've seen it so many times that it is not even amusing anymore.  Women
: would tell me about how they wanted to be "treated as peers or
: equals." then would wait for a man to open the door for them or to
: help them into or out of an automobile.

maybe i'm an exception to the rule, but in general i tend to think that 
whoever gets to the door first opens it.  and the last time that my (now ex)
boyfriend opened a car door for me, i would have smacked him, were it not
for the fact that we were with his dad and his dad would've smacked the bf
for not opening the car door.

: They would resort to flirting
: with single men in the office that THEY chose to flirt with, but would
: come complaining if a man made a pass at them.  Some of the biggest
: whiners about wanting to be treated like men would then come to work
: wearing some frilly dress the next day that would make Martha Stewart
: ashamed.

<shrugs> i don't ask to be treated like a man.  being treated like a person
is more than sufficient.  there is a big difference between being treated like 
a man and being treated equally to men.

: I've seen female supervisors wear clothing that would be inappropriate
: on anyone but a hooker, then have them complain to me about one of
: their subordinates if/when he even commented on the shortness of the
: skirt, tightness of the pants or what could be seen over/under or
: through the blouse.

well, some people (male or female) are not blessed with common sense and 
don't know what is or is not appopriate to wear in a work setting.

: There's the old adage about 'roles and goals.'    "In order to achieve
: the goal, you must play the role."  Women should remember this when
: seeking equality with men in the workplace.  Likewise, a fair-minded
: wife cannot reasonably expect to play one role (that of an ego-centric
: woman who won't accept her husband's surname) and expect him to act as
: the traditional husband.

keeping my last name has no more to do with being ego-centric on a woman's
part than on a man's.  would you have considered taking your wife's name?

-joyce

--
                                             ... and maybe, maybe, then i'll
                                             lose the pain.
http://gremlin.eos.ncsu.edu/jfclapp          -- Ulali

In triangle.general, Steve DeGroof <degroof@mindspring.com> uttered forth:

: Aw, now, you don't really want to killfile Tom. He's one of the few
: sources of comic relief on triangle.general. Remember, he's not really
: an idiot, he just plays one on T.G.  7:^)

Who me? Killfile Tom? 

If I killfile Tom, I won't be able to get my belly laugh a day. =)

-jeni-

-- 
jrgrant2ateosdotncsudotedu

i've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets / looking for a savior
underneath these dirty sheets / i've been raising up my hands / drive
another nail in / just what GOD needs / one more victim / --Tori Amos
                                                             [ jeni grant ]

In triangle.general, Thomas Gauldin <scoundrl@mindspring.com> uttered forth:

: Well, I agree that men are regulate by hormones when they're "that
: way," but women are subject to a much wider range of hormone-driven
: emotions and moods.  At least men are predictable.

Predictable, my gluteus maximus.

: Jeni and other gals who believe so strongly in woman's liberation,
: let's work on this question:  

: Do you EVER wear short dresses,

Nope.

: wear makeup,

Nope. 

: wear tight shorts

Nope.

: or tight blouses 

Nope. 

: or spend a lot of time on your hair?  

Nope. 

I refuse to wear makeup and dresses (unless I absolutely have to), the 
most I've spent on my hair was 10 minutes (and *that* was my senior prom 
-- I wore pants), and with the exception of exercise wear, I *never* wear 
tight clothing. 

: Women, in general, WANT to operate in both the world of
: the man AND in the world of the woman- but to do it selectively as it
: suits them.

*bzzt* Thank you for playing, please play again, we have some nice 
parting gifts. 

In short, YOU LOSE.
 
: There's the old adage about 'roles and goals.'    "In order to achieve
: the goal, you must play the role."  Women should remember this when
: seeking equality with men in the workplace.  Likewise, a fair-minded
: wife cannot reasonably expect to play one role (that of an ego-centric
: woman who won't accept her husband's surname) and expect him to act as
: the traditional husband.

The accepting or not accepting of a husband's surname has *nothing* to do 
with a woman's ego. It has everything to do with identity. The woman may 
choose to keep her identity for reasons of simplicity, for career reasons, 
etc. 

"Liberated" women aren't asking to be treated like men, we're asking to 
be treated like people. We're asking for little things, like people not 
looking surprised when a woman fixes a computer all by her lonesome, or 
being able to keep her own established identity without close-minded 
people ragging on her, or being able to be judged as attractive without 
wearing makeup and dresses and other "feminine" frillery. 

In short, our own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

-jeni-

-- 
jrgrant2ateosdotncsudotedu

i've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets / looking for a savior
underneath these dirty sheets / i've been raising up my hands / drive
another nail in / just what GOD needs / one more victim / --Tori Amos
                                                             [ jeni grant ]

I love to filter by seeing who posted.  I must be physic or sumpin.  I
KNEW Steve would be asking this question about now.  :-) 


Steve Crisp (crisp@pageplanet.com) wrote:
: ellensmith wrote:
: 
: > >How can a man respect someone as a peer if she is wearing 2# of eye
: > >shadow, bright red lipstick and has half of her breasts exposed at
: > >work?
: 
: > Which half does she have exposed?
: 
: And how large are they?
: 
: Steve Crisp

-- 
Wes Dukes
Help eliminate usenet constipation by pruning quoted text.  Thank you.

On 25 Jun 1998 19:01:00 GMT, Joyce Francis Clapp
<jfclapp@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:

>In triangle.general Thomas Gauldin <scoundrl@mindspring.com> wrote:
>: Well, I agree that men are regulate by hormones when they're "that
>: way," but women are subject to a much wider range of hormone-driven
>: emotions and moods.  At least men are predictable.
<----Would just like to thank Joyce for posting
in this group. Not enough women are here.

Thank you Joyce :)

In triangle.general ellensmith <ettaP@swbell.net> wrote:
: <----Would just like to thank Joyce for posting
: in this group. Not enough women are here.

: Thank you Joyce :)

blame my roommate for that.  she keep sending me stuff that had been posted
here til, well, i had to open my big mouth. =)

-joyce

-- 
                                             ... and maybe, maybe, then i'll
                                             lose the pain.
http://gremlin.eos.ncsu.edu/jfclapp          -- Ulali

On 26 Jun 1998 13:56:32 GMT, Joyce Francis Clapp
<jfclapp@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:

>In triangle.general ellensmith <ettaP@swbell.net> wrote:
>: <----Would just like to thank Joyce for posting
>: in this group. Not enough women are here.
>
>: Thank you Joyce :)
>
>blame my roommate for that.  she keep sending me stuff that had been posted
>here til, well, i had to open my big mouth. =)
>
Well at least your thing works! :)

mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:

>TarlaStar (!!!bmyers@ionet.net) wrote:
>: mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:

>[snips and snails, etc.]

>: >Provided that taking the man's name was only to ID the wife w/ her 
>: >husband, you might be right.  However, your over-simplified and limited 
>: >definition just doesn't align with rality and how many others in this 
>: >country view the wife adopting the man's name.
>: 
>: I couldn't care less about how others view the adoption of a husband's
>: name. And my "over-simplified and limited" definition has yet to be
>: countered with anything aside from opinions and emotionally charged
>: statements regarding respect and deference....on the part of the
>: female only.

>Based on what you said above, it seems to me that you either don't read 
>the entire follow-up before responding, or else you refuse to read for 
>content and context.  See below (in my quoted text) where I speak about 
>what I believe the role of the husband to be (sacrificially loving his 
>family).  I don't know about you, but to me, that at the very leats 
>implies my preference and respect for my wife.


>: >You asserted that the wife takes the man's name only to ID herself with 
>: >that guy and for reasons of alliance.
>: 
>: >I refuted that by pointing out the vast majority of American society 
>: >(relevant b/c that's the one we're both in, being in the USA and all) 
>: >doesn't operate under Dark Ages fuedal-clannish mindset you'd like us all 
>: >to. 

>: You did? Wow, I musta missed that one too! I don't particularly want
>: anyone to operate under Dark Ages feudalism, but you seem to want to
>: carry on the traditions of said Dark Ages by continuing to have women
>: adopt their spouse's name. How do you escape the mindset, when you

>I don't think a even hammer would be effective for getting these thoughts 
>through to you:

>o  you said the only reason for taking the man's name was merely formal 
>   ID, alliance, and tribeal membership shifting, or something to that 
>   effect.

I said that the practice of taking a man's name came out of the
tradition changing tribes/making alliances through marriage. That is
the source of the tradition.
> 
>o  I said this may have been true many years back (e.g. the Dark Ages), 
>   but is not applicable now, especially to American society, despite your 
>   protestations and unbased assertions that your interpretation of The 
>   Reason (tm) is exclusively the one you decide upon.

Oh it's not just me, did you think I pulled that idea out of thin air?
It's pretty standard in anthropology.

Just because you have changed the original meaning behind the
tradition to suit yourself, doesn't mean that its origin has changed a
bit.

>: adopt their spouse's name. How do you escape the mindset, when you
>: carry on the tradition?

>Again, you assume that carrying on a tradition can only be carrying the 
>the tradition as you define it to be, rather than how the continuers 
>define it for themselves.

Yes, I know what you'd LIKE it to mean. But the facts are these:
1) the tradition evolved from a time when women were treated as
possessions.
2) Men who claim that it's a sign of love and respect, never seem to
behave in the same way that they expect their spouses to.


>: I am very precise in my language usage. 

>It's you precision I'm contending with.  You so limit and simplify 
>definitions that they no longer represent the commonly accepted 
>defintions.  I contend that your world view just doesn't match up 
>mainstream society and that your railing against things based on your 
>generalities just makes you angrier.

I contend that you are clinging like some cranky three-year-old to a
tradition which has no value in the current world. If you weren't
hanging out with a bunch of Baptists, you'd probably meet dozens and
dozens of women who are married but who keep their own names. It's
much simpler to show respect in ways that don't require a visit to the
DMV.

>: I say exactly what I intend and any presumptions are yours and
>: yours alone. If you go back and read what I've said, in fact, I have
>: only asked questions for the most part and pointed out some
>: differences between world views. I have not given opinions about men
>: and women, Neandertal or otherwise.

>In fact, you may have not said "I think" or "I believe" or words to that 
>effect.  Rather, you make brash assertions (e.g.: taking the man's name 
>can only ever be for the purpose alliance and mere identification) and 
>then refuse to support and evidence your claims w/ present-day examples.

Present day examples of what? A woman who keeps her own name? I AM
one. Please don't add words to my precise language. I very rarely use
words like "only" and I'm pretty sure I haven't used it in this
thread.

>[snippage]

>: Are you retarded or just playing a very close troll? 

>Who's getting emotional now? ;)

I'm sorry, I'm not emotional, just sorta stunned at the levels of
incomprehension you seem to display. I honestly couldn't tell if you
were serious or not.

<snip>
>: Marriage was business, alliance, and public declaration
>: thereof. In the 20th century in westernized countries we have forsaken
>: the use of marriage as a political/social alliance between groups and
>: have turned it into a partnership of equals joined by love and common
>: interest. It's been that way for about 50-75 years now. It was only a
>: matter of time until the language began to reflect that change.

>The difficulty here is that language (that is common usage) doesn't 
>reflect this change in the way you claim or want it.  Most folks getting 
>married in Western cultures -still- tend to adopt the husband's surname 
>for themselves.

Well did you think it was going to happen in one or two generations?
It takes time for language to catch up with cultural change. Words
that surround basics (sun, man, air etc.)  and kinship take the
longest to change. The point is that more and more educated women are
keeping their own names after marriage. Soon enough that will filter
down to lower-class women and eventually even Baptists.


>: >Giving up tribal membership (to join another) was essentially forsaking 
>: >your former tribe.  The problem here is that mainstream American society 
>: >just isn't working with the tribal mindset.  My contention is that I'm 
>: >not wokring from a tribal mindset either, despite your persumption that I am.
>: 
>: I am not presuming anything. I am guessing that since you expect your
>: wife to take your name that you are participating in a tradition that
>: is based in tribal behavior that is no longer relevant whether you
>: know it or not.

>Well you guess wrong.  You limit yourself to only your perception and 
>then project your opinion (excuse me, 'view') on others and declare to 
>them that they are unwittingly or blindly following what is only some 
>long-gone tribal custom.  You absolutely refuse to believe that someone's 
>choices could actually reflect what they tell you they do.

I believe that's what you think you're doing, so to some extent it is.
However, you're refusing to see the bigger picture which is that you
are participating in an outmoded behavior based on a tradition of male
dominance.

>[snippety]

>: >For me, it's not that I'm asking my fiancee to give up her name so much 
>: >as she's doing it voluntarily for reasons of perference and deference for 
>: >me.  Her love for me is such that she wants to be identified and 
>: >connected with me.
>: 
>: But you don't feel that the same behavior is necessary on your part?

>Again, I point out that you do not take into account the entire body of 
>my post when responding.  Get into that habit, and we'll manage to cut 
>down of the sheer volume of our exchanges.

I'm reading all of it, I'm just not responding to all of it.

>Trust me.  Even being engaged, I want as many folks as possible to 
>identify me with my fiancee and vice versa.  The same will hold true when 
>we're married.  My prefence is and will ever be for her.  My respect and 
>desire (preference) for her was more than evident the first time I asked 
>her out on a date.  She'll attest to that.  Even more, my desire and 
>prefernce and respect for her ever grows as we grow closer, as i get to 
>know her better and better.  I thank God for that.

But you don't prefer her enough to take her name, do you? And you
wouldn't prefer her quite as much if she refused to take yours, would
you? See...that name means quite a bit to you, so much in fact, that
you would never consider giving it up, even if she asked you to, but
you think that a woman should toss hers out just to show how much she
respects and loves her husband.

>: You have no desire to show her that you prefer and defer to her? You
>: don't have such a great love that you wish to be identifed and
>: connected to her? Does she know this?

>I did not say that.  See above and below.  I am saving myself to give to 
>her and no other.  I will accept the dual servant-leader role of the 
>husband described in God's Word.  That is what I expect and what my 
>fiancee expects.  It's also what we fervently believe and will vow to 
>each other and to God.

Then do it. Hell, I have no problem with the two of you dressing like
Mickey and Minnie Mouse for the rest of your lives, just don't knock
those who don't want to live in Disneyland.

>: > Equal in importance here is that my role as a husband 
>: >requires that I love my wife (and children, when they eventually happen) 
>: >sacrificially as Christ loved/loves the Chruch.  This isn't about mere 
>: >feelings.  I'm making a conscious choice to do my utmost (including 
>: >sacrificing myself) to see to the physical and spiritual well-being of my 
>: >family.  I will commit-promise-vow before God and man to do this until I 
>: >die.  I'm not taking on a talking possession.  I'll be taking on the task 
>: >of putting my wife and future children before me b/c of my love of God 
>: >and for her.
>: 
>: That's just dandy, but what does it have to do with surnames?

>Well you asked about what my love for my fiancee entails.  Hers is such 
>that she wants to take on my name.

And she'll be doing all the same things that you do; committing,
promising, taking care of the well-being of the family, bearing the
family and then to top it all off like a moldy cherry on a fat-free
sundae...she gets to give up her name and submit! Whoo-hoo!

In article <35951b3d.11134210@enews.newsguy.com>,
Michael OKC <mdbates@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Umm, Tarla, pardon the interruption please, but I just want to point out that
>"they" don't go to Disneyland much less live there.  God forbid they patronize
>an amusement park that refuses to give the finger to gays or lesbians!  ;-)

Wouldn't giving the finger to lesbians make for repeat business?
-- 
The following must be destroyed.  Microsoft, Lyons Partnership.
Balkanize USENET!  Vote from the rooftops!! The best thing in RTP is now SMOG!
Sending unsolicited commercial massmail to this account may result
in a network outage for your site.  Have a nice day.
"Securing a Windows NT system -- Wire Cutters or Thermite?"

Personally, I love Disneyworld and could care less what sentiments the
organization might have or who is boycotting them for publicity this
week.  The place is clean, well run, well built and provides wholesome
family entertainment.  I also plan to take a cruise on their new ship
when it gets into service.

--
Tom Gauldin, Raleigh NC
-NetMeeting   ils.four11.com,   Live Birdfeeder Action
ICQ 7022136     fax (919) 676-1404
ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/pub/users/scoundrl/home.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Here's to the land of the Longleaf Pine,
The Summerland, where the sun doth shine,
Where the weak grow strong, and the strong grow great,
Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.



Michael OKC wrote in message <35951b3d.11134210@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 10:04:17 GMT, !!!bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)
expressed
>the following:
>
>>>I did not say that.  See above and below.  I am saving myself to
give to
>>>her and no other.  I will accept the dual servant-leader role of
the
>>>husband described in God's Word.  That is what I expect and what my
>>>fiancee expects.  It's also what we fervently believe and will vow
to
>>>each other and to God.
>>
>>Then do it. Hell, I have no problem with the two of you dressing
like
>>Mickey and Minnie Mouse for the rest of your lives, just don't knock
>>those who don't want to live in Disneyland.
>
>Umm, Tarla, pardon the interruption please, but I just want to point
out that
>"they" don't go to Disneyland much less live there.  God forbid they
patronize
>an amusement park that refuses to give the finger to gays or
lesbians!  ;-)
>
>Michael OKC

Michael OKC <mdbates@newsguy.com> wrote in article
<35951b3d.11134210@enews.newsguy.com>...
> 
> Umm, Tarla, pardon the interruption please, but I just want to point out
that
> "they" don't go to Disneyland much less live there.  God forbid they
patronize
> an amusement park that refuses to give the finger to gays or lesbians! 
;-)
> 
Speaking of the SBC ban on Disney, I wonder how many SBC supporters will
stop using Infoseek since it has been brouht by Disney?  Do you think Pat
Robertson and others of his ilk will demand that Infoseek purge their
search engine of any references to religious right-type  web sites?  

Hi,
>>"Michael" == Michael OKC <mdbates@newsguy.com> writes:

 Michael> Umm, Tarla, pardon the interruption please, but I just want
 Michael> to point out that "they" don't go to Disneyland much less
 Michael> live there.  God forbid they patronize an amusement park
 Michael> that refuses to give the finger to gays or lesbians!  ;-)

	Quite frankly, in my experience the gay people I know have
 been far more pleasant company that religious fanatics -- and
 unfortunately, the only southern baptist I am aware of knowing was
 quite fanatical. 

	manoj
-- 
 "Despite its suffix, skepticism is not an "ism" in the sense of a
 belief or dogma.  It is simply an approach to the problem of telling
 what is counterfeit and what is genuine.  And a recognition of how
 costly it may be to fail to do so.  To be a skeptic is to cultivate
 "street smarts" in the battle for control of one's own mind, one's
 own money, one's own allegiances.  To be a skeptic, in short, is to
 refuse to be a victim. Robert S. DeBear, "An Agenda for Reason,
 Realism, and Responsibility," New York Skeptic (newsletter of the New
 York Area Skeptics, Inc.), Spring 1988
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E