Nightstorm on Mancoat posted this little life lesson...
--------------
Learning lifes lessons aren't always around a group of old men ready to give the wisdom of the ages. Every man can give you a life lesson by sharing just a part of their life-even if you don't know them and are casually passing on through.
I had such a experience today. After eating lunch, I slowly headed back to work. As I got in the lobby area, I noticed it was just me and 2 other guys by the elevator. Both men appeared to be in their mid 30's to early 40's. One guy was down on his luck, and the other, a co-worker / friend.
As all 3 of us proceeded in the elavator. I press 6, while they are heading towards floor 4. The following phrase came from the victim, who had a very low sad pitched voice, almost as if he was depressed or helpless.
"You know you go out and earn a certain amount of money and when you stop making that much, they leave you for someone else".
*Ding*
Then the depressed man got off the elvator with his friend heading back to work.
It seemed this guy learned the hard way. Somehow, somewhere, he stopped producing; as soon as the money stopped flowing, his relationship ended.
Remember boys, it's all about the money.
---------------
That was thought provoking stuff...
MarkyMark
3 comments:
Of course that isn't exzctly true. But if you built your relationship around the money, then that is what you have. if you see courtship as an endless string of gifts and amusements, then the future ex spouse will certainly feel slighted when you stop providing those things. On the other hand, if during courtship you have serious discussions about your budget and long term goals instead of trying to impress her with fantasy budgets then you have a more realistic expectation of a relationship based on more than just money.
It can be boiled down to just one word: opportunistic or, more graciously (if you wish), practical. Of course, you could also call it mercenary or worse.
If that works so well for women as individuals, why should women not be practical and lobby and clamor to get it institutionalized and have the government enforce it?
In a competition between the two, ruthlessness always comes out the winner over generosity. That doesn't have to be explained by asserting that women are mean-spirited, although they often are (and men not quite so often). It suffices to say that they are just practical and otherwise care just for themselves.
In WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, Warren Farrell explains that men and women are equally powerless (something I don't quite agree with, but he is a self-declared power-feminist) and that men and boys are being indoctrinated to admire women and to follow career paths that enable men to give women what women want.
He calls it "...the principle of the De Beers transfer. She chooses the diamond and chooses among the men her beauty power can attract to buy it." More at: http://fathersforlife.org/what_are_boys_good_for.htm
He is right on the mark. I have yet to see a woman go down on her knee, propose to a man and present him a diamond ring in the process. It's "tradition", as in The Fiddler on the Roof, institutionalized sexism.
When tradition benefits them, women turn a blind eye to sexism. Practicality dictates that women are incapable of seeing anything wrong with sexism as long as it benefits them. Women are incapable of seeing anything wrong with that. There is no feminine version of the code of chivalry, for which reason very, very few women are capable of being objective and virtually all women employ a very single-minded view of sexism. Sexism against men is invisible to virtually all women.
Walter,
I can be very objective when the issue is intellectual. And so I can see feminist sexism very well. I must be the exception of the rule.
Brazilian Woman.
Post a Comment