This post might have some random statements, such as the title.
And I have no idea why my background template decided to change. I was scrolling through the various options over a month ago, and I clicked on this one called TEQUILA, cause I thought, "ooooooh... I love tequila!" (Yeah I know. Good Reason.)
Anyway, I wanted to see what it looked like and it just never showed me. So I moved on. (It's true. I know how to move on from those things.)
The other day I guess it decided to change! Haven't decided if I like it or not. I had the rose-colored one for so long. I'm not sure I want to see things without the rose-colored glasses. Time will tell. It always does.
So I'm kinda pissed off today. My son is dating a girl whose step-father is a neanderthal. In all fairness, I know almost nothing about him. But everything I do know so far is negative. Well... he does make a very good carne asada, which is nothing to be sneezed at! Her mother is an idiot, at best.
So why should I be upset? Because now son and girlfriend are expecting a child. Which means (you guessed it) I am now linked to these two undesirables for the rest of my life!
Yesterday, the caveman found out about it. Parents' responses to their teenage daughter's pregnancy is always fascinating to me. I'm sure you can imagine that I've seen a lot of these responses. I have rarely seen a case where their first reaction wasn't in light of the reflection this will make on them as parents. They feel like they've failed. They are not happy about letting people know that they are failures. In short, it's all about them. As humans, it's only natural that our initial responses be about us. We are egocentric creatures.
This creature decided that he would insist that the "kids" get married. So I called a meeting. I told him that I understand his shock and concern, and that my son is clearly ready to take his responsibility in the matter seriously. His life has now changed drastically and will continue to do so. But I will not stand idly by while a "shotgun wedding" is performed. The man then proceeded to tell me about his upright view of the sacred wedding vows and their importance and blah blah blah... to which I said, "I don't agree." So he said, "Well then what do we do?" I said, "I say it doesn't matter what you or what I think, it matters what they think... let's ask them." And so we did. He conceded that the wedding was not going to be a priority that he would try to force. Fuckin hell. What's next? I can see that it's not going to be an easy journey. That's alright. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right?
This cathouse
SERIOUSLY
recommends:
By Diesel
Buy New $11.95
9 comments:
Hi Teri, wolfe here.
Your website is no longer annoyingly pink!
You've left some intelligent comments on my blog; I can at least comment on yours. Can't promise you'll view them as 'intelligent' comments though, given your view of your ex.
Look, there is a reason why men gravitate to promoting shotgun weddings. A woman's peak fertility is circa 18-29, tops. A man's goes on for much longer.
A man who fools around with a woman and makes her pregnant is greatly reducing her attractiveness to other men. He has responsibility, and it's not just paying some cash.
Men are very good at conceptualizing responsibility, though not always good at executing. Hence the desire for shotgun, by older male role models.
The "caveman's" views are not patently unreasonable in my eyes.
That said, sounds like you're about to become a grandmother. Wow. (and btw, for a granny, you look very nice according to your photo).
A strange change for you and for your ex-husband.
Yeah, you're now linked to a neanderthal and an 'idiot at best'. It happens. Young men are not very good at choosing women, sad to say.
I think ultimately I'm most troubled by the view you espouse of your -ex. "The caveman" ... the "creature".
Sheesh. Either you had hella bad judgement when you married him, or you're really mad at him now.
He's a "creature"?
I profusely apologize if this offends you. It's my honest reaction.
I wish you well.
And I've no use for Teri Hatcher.
-wolfe
wolfe,
What a nice surprise.
I do understand the intrinsic view of a man to desire marriage for his daughter. I just happen to dislike the idea of marriage on any level. But that is beside the point. I am not inclined to let any young person be persuaded to marry against their will. Even if that young person is not my own child. But I appreciate the perspective.
The fact is, this young woman fooled around of her own free will, too. So the potential loss of attractiveness (which some would strongly beg to differ) is her own responsibility.
You did mention at your blog that women are confused about their responsiblities in this man's world. I agree with you. Feminism did us no favors. The culture around us provides far too many pitfalls to name. But if one walks circumspectly, one may live life with a generous amount of personal freedom. I am one who does not believe that freedom comes from a country, or the governments indulgence of its citizens, or in the simple sense of not being in chains. If I were locked up in a dark basement, I know I would still be free. My kind of freedom is one that can't be taken from me. I've lost it before and I shan't be doing it again.
It is this kind of freedom I expect those I encounter to consider. I expect people to ponder the words they say and the ideas they own and I will call them on it. I don't at all expect that they will agree with me or live by my convictions. But I do expect them to live by their own.
So, even though I call this man a creature and a caveman, I am just using literary playfulness in exaggerating his character. I can appreciate his living by his own rules. But I won't let him impress them on others.
Although I am not referring to my ex in those statements. I didn't refer to my ex at all in this blog entry. So I'm not sure if you misunderstood, or if you mean to say that I see all men as living in the age of the neanderthal. At any rate, if I were talking about my ex, I would surely have used much stronger language! (Did I just call you Shirley?) BUT, having said that... my ex is a good man. He's just not a good husband. And I may even be wrong in saying that, as he may be a good husband to another woman, and it is I who am not a good wife. I do not, on the other hand, believe that all men are alike. And I make a conscious effort not to view other men in light of the bad experience I had with him. But I'm only human.
As for being a grandmother, thank you very much for the congrats and the compliment. I have actually been a grandmother for nearly two years now. My oldest son has a beautiful daughter. She is to be 2 on 9/11. I am going to visit this weekend to celebrate her birthday. They are 750 miles away. I try to make it every couple of months so I don't miss too much of her young life.
So, I feel I've gone on and on, and I'm not sure I've said much at all.
But rest assured. I am never offended by honesty.
And I don't have much use for Teri Hatcher, either. Although at least she has something to say. Even though it is mostly just frailty.
Thanks Teri.
You reacted the way I hoped you'd react. Fair warning, I sometimes phrase things bluntly ('Your website is no longer annoyingly pink!') so please grant me slight latitude. If I ever say anything that offends you, please assume innocent interpretation first, though don't hesitate to call me on it.
You misread one fundamental thing in what I said: "I do understand the intrinsic view of a man to desire marriage for his daughter".
No. For any woman, even when his son is the one involved.
I argue that there has been a sense of 'noblesse oblige' (that cuts very much both ways) from men to women historically.
This has been both beneficial for women and quite negative for women.
The very term ('Nobility is obligated' in literal translation -- and I'm well aware you know that) suggests that men are nobles GIVING something to peasant women.
Hardly a pleasant picture, though one with a degree of accuracy. (There was a reason first suffragette movements and then feminist movements arose).
But men felt impelled -- possibly at a genetic level, certainly at a societal level, to protect women.
Part of being a man was treating women properly.
This often -- though by no means always (and sometimes the reverse -- sometimes considerable intellectual disdain) -- equated to treating women with respect and courtesy.
A man who's first reaction is a shotgun wedding, even when this may be bad for his son is being a man. Is living up to the code of manhood established up to the early-to-mid-20th century.
It's not just protecting his daughter, it's protecting all daughters.
Are men grossly inconsistent and hypocritical on this? Yep, assuming they read, say, Playboy. Someone's daughter is posing for those pictures after all.
Doesn't mean men didn't try. Doesn't mean the Birkenhead drill (google it if you don't know what I mean) wasn't right.
And of course, as you correctly note, shotgun weddings are not the answer.
I'm now going to say some incredibly insulting things. The fact that they are true is what I hope will keep you from extreme anger.
The fact is, this young woman fooled around of her own free will, too. So the potential loss of attractiveness (which some would strongly beg to differ) is her own responsibility.
Men have traditionally -- and some do still -- view women as weaker moral actors with less responsibility for their decisions than men in the same situation. (e.g., penalties for female criminal s committing the same crime as males are lower)
This view can be viciously distorted into viewing women as spiritually less than men -- see radical Islam and Sharia law, where a woman's word is worth 1/4th of a man's. Women's souls -- women's beings are no more and no less than men's.
That said, there may be some rationality behind this view. Women are more emotional, and less rational. Boys are raised from birth to be rational; girls... not so much.
End insulting statements. (I hope!)
I am one who does not believe that freedom comes from a country, or the governments indulgence of its citizens
Well said. I'm not sure I buy into your basement disco bondage (WKRP reference) fantasies (joke!) but I certainly strongly concur with the first part of what you say, quoted above.
It is this kind of freedom I expect those I encounter to consider. I expect people to ponder the words they say and the ideas they own and I will call them on it.
Superb (along with the rest). Yes, this is my philosophy, though I also seek to persuade others at least slightly to my point of view.
I'm a man; I'm goal oriented.
So, even though I call this man a creature and a caveman, I am just using literary playfulness in exaggerating his character.
I got that on caveman. I didn't get that on creature. Creature seemed nasty to me. Just so you know, so you can calibrate/explain in future. Don't get me wrong, I fully accept your statement, just saying how I interpreted what you said.
Caveman = human. Creature = non-human. Much harsher.
Although I am not referring to my ex in those statementsTotally missed that. My reading comprehension sux0rz or your writing does. Or both. (kidding!). Yeah, seriously, misread that.
Did I just call you Shirley?You do know his brother was Deputy Prime Minister of Canada? (Now that's an OBSCURE response that I think you'll get but no one else).
I try to make it every couple of months so I don't miss too much of her young life. Not the same thing (since I'm only an uncle), but most of my nieces and nephews are in the Yukon, and I spend most of my time in New York (and sometimes Ottawa). Tough to be separated from the next generation.
So, I feel I've gone on and on, and I'm not sure I've said much at all.
That's ok; so have I.
-wolfe
wolfe,
So much to reply to and so little time! But I'll be brief (more likely as brief as Polonius!) and perhaps get back to some of it later.
The argument you make about the nature of men and women is definitely historically sound. But I've never believed that the natural thing is necessarily the best thing.
I do know that there comes a point in every woman's life when she realizes that any man can overtake her physically. And there comes a point in every man's life when he realizes that any woman can overtake him emotionally. And the only thing that prevents us from constantly doing so to one another is the measure of our integrity and character.
I find no offense in a single word you said, by the way. I like truth. I dislike animosity, prejudice and malice. I sense none of that in you.
I have a feeling that you come from a standpoint of evolution. I come from standing on the ground of creation (which also, in my mind, includes a great deal of evolution). It creates some misunderstanding, but nothing that can't be settled by just knowing we are sitting in different seats.
So, in my world, the word caveman has a much greater negative connotation than creature. Creature is just the basest word that means a created thing. And since I don't even believe cavement existed, then it implies much more leniency on my part to give credence to a man's actions.
But must go now.
wolfe,
I'm a little confused about the Birkenhead concept of "women first" versus the concept of "women lesser." It's clear that women are the weaker sex. I know many a femninist that would bristle at that comment. But it's just crazy to deny it. Historically, men of any measure have embraced the natural tendency to protect and honor women. Both for their weakness and their strength.
I would like to now point out that, even though your attempt to defend this man in my story is right and good, it does not necessarily follow that he is acting in accordance with that tendency. It may be in him to behave as a man should, to expect young people to take responsibility and rise to the occasion. But his call to my son to be a "man" I do not take as a call that should be answered. As I know this type of man not to be the type that any young man should aspire to be. He is lazy. He is supported by his wife. He spends his time harrassing her and her girls about the way he wants things to be. He insisted that they call him "Dad," even though they have their own father and he was in their lives for a time until this man told the father that his girls no longer wanted anything to do with him (which was not true). In my opinion, he is continually yielding to the temptation to be in control. And as much as we would like to go back and forth on the subject of the nature of man and woman, I honestly think his response lies almost entirely in how this makes him look as a "father" and how it makes him feel about himself.
I happen to like men very much. I like the nature of men. I think it's important that men and women understand one another on the level of both what is born and bred into us, and the choices we make. I appreciate, for instance, that my ex husband had good motives in the things he did. He applied them terribly, but I understood that he really did them in order to bring about a certain desired result. (As you said, he's a man. Goal oriented.) Unfortunately, he provided fertile ground for alienation rather than closeness from his loved ones. So it's quite alright to sit back and analyze things on the level of what is indeed compelled by our natures. But when the reality of relationship is not brought in to personalize it, I find it altogether more impersonal than I would like life to be.
The real relation between man and woman is my passion. So, although I can appreciate our natures, when it comes down to the ability of applying those natures to the bonds of life... that is where true admiration comes in.
Well said. (and note, I'll sometimes take a few days to respond to a response; I travel more than I'd like).
Like the Hamlet Ref. He (Polonius) actually was the first character to make the play come alive for me, since his motives seemed so human. Nearly everyone else seemed... crazy. Mind you that's also human I suppose.
"And there comes a point in every man's life when he realizes that any woman can overtake him emotionally. "
I have no idea what this means. You could of course cite that fact as proving your point. Overtake emotionally? Do you mean in empathy? Altruism? Being able to cry a lot? (obviously that last is a tad facetious). Do you perhaps mean manipulate emotionally?
If you do. Hmm... Interesting. Yes. But that's not quite the same as "overtake emotionally". It really isn't.
"And the only thing that prevents us from constantly doing so to one another is the measure of our integrity and character."
Yes. If you mean what I think you mean.
"I like truth. I dislike animosity, prejudice and malice. I sense none of that in you."
Thank you. I think your statement is slightly simplistic (more on that another time), but an excellent and kind first order approximation (e.g., I am prejudiced against the KKK, and have animosity towards them. Malice towards none, though, except in brief moments of anger, such as a criminal brutalizing someone innocent).
"I have a feeling that you come from a standpoint of evolution. I come from standing on the ground of creation (which also, in my mind, includes a great deal of evolution)"
Hmmm. I would actually say I come from the latter.
I believe this universe was created by God, but that he allowed open free-will and evolution to occur.
I hope we would both agree that those who utterly reject evolution are then stipulating that God plays some pretty weird tricks with us to test our faith. (e.g. look at molecular biology).
That said, I am a strong rationalist, that much is certainly true. If an element of the Bible utterly disagrees with rationality, then I conclude that Man (or men) erred in transcribing it.
Update: Since you state you do not believe cavemen existed... hmmm. Wow. If I am interpreting you correctly, I vehemently disagree, though I see why you consider creature a lesser insult than caveman.
All that said, *THIS* is your living room, and not a place for me to make scientific arguments on things that matter to you.
I'd appreciate clarification of your beliefs on this, just so I can understand you. I'll clarify mine all you wish as well.
-wolfe (more to follow)
Now responding to the post that begins "I'm a little confused"
I'm going to skip the "women first vs. women lesser: argument for a few paragraphs.
"But his call to my son to be a "man" I do not take as a call that should be answered" Fair enough. I can't disagree with that. You know better than I. You might be wrong (i.e., you know better, but not best), but I can't argue so.
"He is lazy. He is supported by his wife." Yep. If accurate, very doubtful character. (I say so only because ex-spouses have a difficult time being rational about one another). Since I am generally remorselessly logical, I must account for the fact that you could be emotionally biased against him. That said, I'm obviously reading your blog because I value your views and thoughts. 'Nuff said.
The final two paragraphs, starting with "I happen to like men very much."
I agree completely. 'Cept I happen to like women very much.
Now, back to "women first vs. women lesser"
I'll try. Please note that this is from a very rational, almost utilitarian viewpoint. If you are a Christian (as I understand you to be), you may find this very dry. I'll try a brief Christian viewpoint at the bottom of this post.
Without women (and without men) there is no human society.
A balance is vital in all things, and the male-female dynamic is both powerful and productive. (I think feminism has rendered it weaker and less productive).
Men are far more capable of defending against physical hazards. No one would deny that. Therefore, for the good of society, given the need for both men and women, men's lives should be sacrificed first in an attempt to save women's.
Women lesser?
Certainly, women may be slightly less intelligent, and considerably less strong.
But less adept at bearing children? No. Quite the contrary.
Lesser to society? No.
Lesser in the eyes of God?
No.
Emphatically no.
The soldier with IQ 105 is almost certainly a lesser strategist than the soldier with IQ 150.
Neither of them is lesser in the eyes of God. Both souls are equal.
Women may be marginally statistically less ranged-intelligent and somewhat less exceptional than a man. [note that both of these stats go both ways -- i.e. fewer idiot women than idiot men].
But less important in the eyes of society? Less important in the eyes of God?
Not so.
Always. [10 points for catching the literary ref].
I hope that clarifies.
-wolfe
I sometimes take a few days to respond, as well. I just got back from a trip to visit the grandbaby et al. I go every couple of months. But unlike you, I travel far less than I'd like.
Re: (Polonius) actually was the first character to make the play come alive for me
Hmmm... I wish I could claim such literary elevation, but the thing that made the play come alive for me was Kenneth Brannagh's presentation of it. I fell in love with his view and presentation of the play, I guess. But after that, I came to love the words of Shakespeare as if they were living water. I also have an opinion on the controversy of his identity. Rarely do I find one who wants to discuss it, though. Most either say, "what controversy?" or "who cares who he was, his writing speaks for itself!"
Re: Do you perhaps mean manipulate emotionally?
I suppose I meant a woman can beat a man at any emotional game.
Re: I think your statement is slightly simplistic
Of course my statement was simplistic! It was hardly the time to go into an exhaustive explanation of animosity, prejudice and malice. I would think that you'd know by now that I don't fall into the category of sainthood (well, by most definitions anyway). I must have some measure of these things that rise up in me, just as you mentioned in your case. When I make a simplistic statement, I will always only mean it in the general sense, especially as it applies to general character. For instance, all families are dysfunctional. So to say a family is dysfunctional is far too simplistic. I won't apply the term unless the family dynamics are characterized by dysfunctionality, etc. I am generally non-violent and very much lacking in malice. But there have been times when I would have liked a cannon in order to shoot the kneecaps off of my ex husband! I never wanted to kill him, just maim him. Never could figure out, though. He would hang-glide for a hobby. He was a Navy diver and now he's a highway patrolman. Why isn't he dead yet? (I'm only half-kidding.)
Re: I am a strong rationalist, that much is certainly true. If an element of the Bible utterly disagrees with rationality, then I conclude that Man (or men) erred in transcribing it.
I am also a strong rationalist. Or at least that is how I perceive myself. I don't put any faith in man to have had utter power over transcribing the Bible, though. If an element of the Bible disagrees with rationality then I have to further evaluate the translation, yes, but also the supposed rationality. And there is the matter of faith. Some things I just won't understand entirely. Light is revealed little by little, but I am patient. I have all of eternity in order to learn it. In the meantime, I have to stand on some sort of ground, and it must be the Bible. Of course, we will then have to go rounds on which translation, which transcripts, which canon, etcetera, etcetera etcetera...
Re: Cavemen
Well you must know that there is strong argument against the "evidence" as it stands. I do believe evolution has occurred and is occurring. But I believe man and woman were created as man and woman and not in the midst of a process wherein we derived from apes. I believe the world was created in a literal seven days. And I believe the earth is only maybe... eight thousand years old... give or take a few thousand. You are always welcome to disagree, vehemently or otherwise. Believe me, you're not the first to do so! :) I am not at all religious, and quite honestly, I have no peers where my spirituality lives. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I only expect them to respect my right to disagree with them. And that is my living room rule. You can talk about whatever you like, as long as you don't resort to demeaning comments. And again, I don't get that sense from you.
Anyway, all of that said in an effort to help you understand "me," per your request.
Re:
"He is lazy. He is supported by his wife." Yep. If accurate, very doubtful character. (I say so only because ex-spouses have a difficult time being rational about one another). Since I am generally remorselessly logical, I must account for the fact that you could be emotionally biased against him.
I'm still trying to figure out how this confusion about this man being my ex-spouse came about. It's making me think I might be a complete communication idiot! The man to whom I'm referring here is the step-father of the girl who is carrying my son's child. I haven't made mention of my son's father in this story. In fact, his father doesn't even know yet about it, unless he heard it through the grapevine. My son has no contact with his father. I agree, this is sad. And as ungracious as I've been in describing my ex-husband in other posts, please don't go too far in thinking I've encouraged this. The resentment my children feel toward their father is entirely between them. They have run from him because of his treatment of them, not his treatment of me. They were older when we divorced and even if we tried to say negative things about one another, they would not stand for it. They knew they didn't want to be mixed up in the feelings we had for one another. But sadly, their father has dealt harshly with them. I think I made mention earlier as to how I know (and even they know) that he did these things for their "benefit." And, contrary to the things that define the above referenced step-father who is to potentially be my son's future father-in-law, my ex is not lazy. He is a man with a strong work ethic. I am sure if you knew him, you would like him. And I'm sure that if I had never been married to him, I'd like him, too. I have often told him that I'd love to be friends. But he can't seem to refrain from spewing bitterness when we speak. So we don't.
Re:
That said, I'm obviously reading your blog because I value your views and thoughts. 'Nuff said.
Yes, and I appreciate that.
Re:
Now, back to "women first vs. women lesser"
This is gonna kill you. I really don't know where I was going with that because now the water has become too muddied. But suffice it to say, that I agree with everything you said in order to clarify and I think we are coming from the same place.
And, as usual, I enjoy the way you say it.
Always.
As opposed to not always so. ;)
Post a Comment