A little bit.I don't tell them that much.Not yet anyway.We had a good discussion about a bowling match being abandoned because one of the bowlers dropped dead on the green.I was arguing that they should have played on with a stiff upper lip out of respect for the man who would have wished them to do just that but I didn't convince them.They said I was callous which,under the circumstances,was tantamount to claiming they were sensitive and caring souls.
You don't think I'm callous do you?
BT.
Do you like the idea of us lot talking about you in an idealised way?
Callous? Hm, well you had no connection to the dead bowler,
so naturally, it is easy for you to make such statements.
His friends obviously thought differently.
Who is "us" and why would you talk about me in an
idealised way?
"Us" is fellow boozers and if we didn't talk about you in an idealised way we would have to talk about you in an unidealised way which would never do would it?But we have it in proportion.It is only an occasional brief mention.Do I get a mention in your circles?
To return to a previous topic.The first para of a Sunday Times article by-lined John Harlow,Los Angeles states-
American brides are rejecting the vow to love "till death do us part" in favour of more cautious promises such as one to stay together "for as long as our marriage shall serve the common good".
I have been getting the impression recently that a fair proportion of Americans are a few cents short of a dollar but surely even those can see that the "cautious promises" mean nothing and it is a simple logical step from there to the conclusion that the marriage means nothing either and is thus merely game playing and,as such,as I previously pointed out,subject to fashion.Or even whims.So my remark that you are more up to date and sophisticated than I am is amply confirmed.It might be said that marriage,as an institution,is broken in the US and thus that people who consider themselves married aren't really and are having themselves on.So to avoid confusion I suggest another term which I have heard which is "serial monogamy" and that,with a dash of chilli peppers on it's tail might be little different than what happens in red light districts.You could have brothels where a state official marries the punter to the lady of his choice and afterwards another state official divorces them on the grounds of the "cautious promises".Render it all more respectable sort of.
Are you a proper feminist?
If you Google the ST up you can read the article.
Spendi-, I know you were answering Jane, but I must take umbrage with your blanket assumption of American marriage. I agree that, unfortunately some are 'a few fries short of a happy meal', but you lump those of us who are REALLY married in the pot with the serial monogamists and "semi-committed". Marriage, in general is 'broken' in the US, but those of us who are in it for the long haul (and I actually know many) are poster children for what good marriage can be, American or otherwise.
I guess you could hardly call me a respectable feminist unless you mean in the sense that I believe in equal pay for equal work..., but I doubt that was your intention. I suppose that makes me more egalitarian than feminist?
How do you sit on the feminist issues?
dev-
I used to say,when I had my 5 year long set to with feminists,that they were running women off a cliff.These days I say that they have run women off a cliff.
There are implications most people never think about to it all but I won't go into that here.
It is not me you should take umbrage with.I merely reported what had been written in LA and applied ordinary simple logic to it.I have no particular view on it.If the women have to be on the rocks for this system to function that's the way it is.
The only reason I attack feminism is to bolster the faith of Mrs Average and let her know that the feminist garden is not as cute as they paint it to be.And feminists have most of the brushes.So-you see-I'm on your side.
But individual cases prove nothing sociologically.I do know who are the happiest women though and I don't judge that by the statements that are made.I have eyes as well as ears.And I'm thinking lifetimes as well and not just the glory years.
I don't mind any arguments so long as they are not riddled with hypocrisy.The last time all the power lines were down in a blizzard in Scotland the news showed a lot of footage of the repair work.There wasn't one single woman in sight.Which is as it should be of course.But the feminists sat at home waiting for the lights to come back on are agitating for more women in the House of Commons.Did you know that most road repairs in Russia are carried out by women.That's at least real feminism.
That's the direction these influence fascists want to go.If women took over Mrs Average would become a beast of burden.Alpha females are pitiless.
Did you not know that?
whow, lot's of topics to address here: I'll start with ladies first!
devriesj, I agree with you, one cannot generalize an
entire nation based on what a few brides have uttered in
Los Angeles, where the divorce rate is probably 80 %
(don't quote me though). There are many married couples
out there who have made it work and who are successful
in a longterm marriage, regardless of their nationality.
They have my utmost respect, and show me that there is
hope for the "institution" marriage.
spendius, as I said previously, no one enters a marriage
without hoping that it will last forever. Reality proves us
differently, nevertheless when one gets married, "forever"
is the operative word. Whom you get married to, will
change your life permanently, even after its demise. You
could end up as a happily married guy, and you also could get out of it with only the shirt on your back.
In Germany, the trend is: just living together as opposed
to getting married. They have a word for it too, "Lebensabschnittspartner" which probably would translate into "life segment partner". The word already
suggests, only for a segment of your life. Here both parties agree to it, without the commitment of marriage.
Am I a proper feminist? Is there a proper way? I'd call
it "selfish feminist" as I fight strictly for my own causes.
I don't have the stamina to fight for womanhood in general.
And no, my circles don't know about you, or a2k for
that matter, as it becomes almost never a topic in our
conversations.
<edit> new question as spendius came inbetween now.
Judging from the little town you have lived in all your life spendius,
can you really make a global assumption of women?
I hope my answer to dev also answers your question.
Beware the term "many".
I'm not actually arguing.I simply give a small amount of support to those who have faith in the old ways.I don't really know which is best because there are different ways to define best.I go out and about and I see a lot.
Can you Google our papers?
Probably.
Did you have a certain one in mind?
Cal-
Certainly not a global one.I have been places you know.Not on holiday though.And I've lived in the countryside most of the time.
The argument is not black and white.It's more like osmosis and it takes book length screeds to even make a start.But I've read plenty of anthropology,sociology and psychology plus a lot of other stuff.
If I was a woman I would be a feminist but not a half-assed one.I would be a Can-Can girl or something.Gee-I'd love that.Or a porn star.I'd have it made for 22 with a well off bloke about 40 who was besotted with me and who would leave me all his dough when I was about 50 so I could spend my time on the cruise ships.That's my idea of feminisism.As it is I'm not a lot different from a mule.
This morning a good 10% of the blue sky was polluted with vapour trails.I've seen it up near 40%.
Do you think that affects the crops and the health of us stick-in-the-muds?
dev-
Earlier I quoted from an article in the Sunday Times which I can Google up about the new style marriage "vows" in LA.I think you can read all our papers.The Sunday ones stay on for a week.For the article in question you click on The Sunday Times main paper and it lists all the headings.You click on them to read the articles.It's easy here.
Do you go in pubs?
Would you believe I've seen commentary about much of the pollution being from such natural things as volcanoes and methane gas from cows?!
I go in pubs sometimes, but not by myself. I don't have a usual hang out pub either. Too busy with the kids, the business, etc. I go when we feel like it or get the time.
How long have you been going to your pub?
For sure dev.But vapour trails are mostly unnecessary aren't they?
Unnecessary pollution, I suppose, but nonetheless necessary to the planes that leave them!
Do you have a solution for eliminating them?
dev-3 weeks.The usual one is closed for 6 weeks for a whole body makeover which I dread to see revealed in 3 weeks time.
What section of Yellow Pages are you in?
Yellow pages? Are you referring to the handyman business?
Dev-sorry-I thought you had Yellow Pages.It's an all businesses phone book with entries for each line of work.
A lot of vapour trails could be eliminated if people liked staying at home like I do.It would murder some stock prices though.So it is the same problem in micro as it is in macro.Do we keep growth going even if it chokes us.?
Why don't you ask this question the Chinese?
They'll outnumber us shortly, and pollution is something
they don't care about.
Staying at home isn't the answer either. We have to find
a way to purify the air and use less pollutants. Aren't
scientists supposed to research that?
You mean a sort of magic wand.
What a useless bunch we men are eh?Can't even provide you with all these comforts without making a big mess.Hopeless.
Is that what you mean?
Ding Ding.
Right. Sorry, I'm distracted watching the Air France
plane crash.... horrible, just horrible..
