Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So right, I think that just the fact of you asking is a little offensive, lets leave the job of judging to Hashem.
Thats not really what I am saying. But I am sure you are aware that not everyone agrees that there should be minimal speaking during the engagement period. Its not that they are just throwing things to the wind. They are conscious of what could go wrong and make every effort to ensure it doesn’t, short of stopping all communications.
SELF CONTROL
So right, I wasn’t asking for your approval of the situation. I was just giving another answer to the question posed. The question had nothing to do with the temptations of meeting and during the engagement. I am not denying what you are saying, but not everyone agrees with how the situation is remedied.
I’m asking out of curiosity of those who dated a longer time and also met often during the engagement period if you became conscious of negative character trait(s) (that every human possesses)of your future spouse and if you did, how did you deal with that issue?
I have a similar situation to the Wolf. My husband and I dated for a rather long time, in part because we started dating for silly reasons when we were in high school. But once we were old enough (at the age of 18) to realize that we wanted to be married and have a life together, it wasn’t exactly possible to get married right away. We both went to college, and were finishing up our first year , so we had absolutely no means of supporting ourselves. With that, we got very little support from our parents because they thought we were so young. We did get engaged about a year later, once everyone was on board and our finances were figured out. Throughout the engagement period we met often and to be honest, we both felt that we were only growing closer in the excitement for our futures. I think that negative attributes come out once a couple is married and living together. It is only then that you really see all sides of a person.
B”H everything has been wonderful, I think that a major reason for this is because when a problem or an argument arises we make sure to take a step back, let the argument happen, but make it a constructive argument where in the end we both feel as if we know more about each other. I think it goes back to the expectations. I won’t say that I didn’t have some expectations of what life would be like once I was married, of course I did. But I knew that it wasn’t going to be a fairy tale. I think that knowing this helps us both make the best of everything and allows for better communication. IMO it is effective communication that makes a great marriage.
There is one such public school in the bronx, PS 140, which has both boys and girls, but keeps the classrooms single sex.
I am not going to defend gang behavior, it really is indefensible, but I will say that it is important to understand the nature and way in which a gang comes into existence and maintains popularity. Call me liberal, but gangs really only gain power when more traditional methods of succeed (like acquiring a job and being able to provide for your family, having access to basic resources like a decent education and a decent library) are closed off. Housing projects become havens for gang activity because there is not much else available to many of the people in the housing projects. The issue is larger than the formation of the gang, it is an infection within the welfare system, which is not really designed to be a stepping stone for people in need. Instead it creates dependency, leaving the youth growing up in a cycle of welfare, soon believing that there is no more they are able to achieve than glory in a gang or a welfare check.
Hereorthere, you also said,
“The liberals also destroyed families withn their policies of telling families that they had to break up to get welfare money.”
What is an example of a policy that dictates the family must break up so that the government has more money for welfare? Also do you use feminism and liberalism interchangeably? Liberal tends to be a rather loaded word, similar to feminism, which really has numerous meanings depending on exactly what type of liberal you are actually talking about.
It is not the gangs who cause schools to be underfunded, although they may exacerbate the issue. Schools are underfunded because of the cities set up the initial funding for schools. Because they are tax based, a school based next to a housing project is never going to be as well funded as in a middle or upper class neighborhood. Also, there are some al-girls or all-boys public schools.
Hereorthere, I agree with a lot of what your saying. I guess the case your bringing up is perhaps more recent but it does not negate the fact that there are still precedents that try to strike down reverse discrimination. I think its also important to bear in mind your news sources. Relying exclusively on Hannity or Rush means that your likely only getting one interpretation of a story. I think though that you are mistaken in comparing the fight for equality amongst blacks and whites to girls and boys. No one would deny that most schools populated mostly by minorities tend to be underfunded and therefore not on the same level of the white schools; even in today’s world, this still tends to be true because our neighborhoods are rather segregated. Many liberals who want black and white students to be mixed do not always want for boys to be mixed as well. Co-ed schools are part of a particular educational approach that has nothing to do with liberalism. Also, most of the prestigious schools, like the super-expensive private schools tend to not be co-ed.
Hereorthere:
“his means that in the not too distant future, men will be treated the way women used to in the work place as second class citizens with lower paid and harder jobs”
I do not think that this will happen, at least not in this country because the Supreme Court has ruled against the practice of reverse discrimination. If a man were to be denied a job merely because he is not a woman, he can challenge it and has precedents to rely upon to support his case.
I will agree that in the effort to allow girls to succeed in school, boys have lost out in a sense. The classroom is set up to better allow girls to learn, like using novels that appeal more to girls than boys or and the removal of recess from many schools’ schedules. This is not a conspiracy to make boys fail, instead it is an unintended consequence of trying to level the playing field. It is for this reason that I, and many others, believe that education should only be in same-sex environments. Boys and girls learn differently and it is very difficult to cater to the needs of both in a single classroom.
I think that there is more to the rate of girls vs. boys entering college than simply than actual abuse of boys in the public school. I find it hard to believe that anyone who pursues a career in education wishes for about half of their students to fail. There are other larger societal factors at play that hurt boys chances at graduating high school and continuing on to college. Some of these factors do not tend to apply to the jewish community, but it did not seem like you were talking exclusively about jews. Major factors, especially in poorer areas where fewer boys tend to make it into college than girls, include a greater likelihood of boys getting involved in a gang or because a boy is able to contribute more to a family’s income by getting a job (because they will be able to bring in more money than a girl in the same family could).
Hereorthere, actually many liberal feminists are actively trying to spread awareness about spousal abuse perpetrated by the wife against the husband. Many of the scholarly articles published by and for psychologists, sociologists, and social workers, dealing with domestic violence, tend to focus on violence against men not by men. My husband, who is currently studying to become a social worker, tells me that he is constantly reading and learning about studies showing that men, too, are victims of spousal abuse. This in turn has lead to a slow rise in men who are succeeding in bringing cases of spousal abuse to the police and the courts. In a sense, it is the same feminists who you are accusing of ruining society, that are also fighting for the things you claim society ignores. (No court will accept a case of spousal abuse, even cases brought by women claiming their husbands hurt them, unless there is clear evidence that shows that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether or not her girl friends believe her claims is sort of irrelevant.)
There is also a fair amount mentioned about the way some children treat their parents. Although I believe that the children’s behavior is not entirely comparable to that of the spouses’ because a child’s mind is not yet fully capable of understanding the complete effects of all their actions. The example you brought, although frustrating, could be considered abuse or bullying,IMO.
dupe post.
Hereorthere, you say,
“Radical feminists try and hide behind equality but many websites dedicated to feminism if you are a member you get access to their “inner circle” where they admit they are frusterated with equality because they really want superiority and always have. They just understand that they cannot come out and admit such things.”
I am not really sure what websites you are referring to. Feminism is a social movement, not a cult. It is true that radical feminist want superiority, they do not try to hide this fact. On the other hand liberal feminists disagree with the radicals. They do not believe in superiority for anyone, not from men nor for themselves, they seek only for equal opportunity for all people. They are usually aligned with other civil rights activists.
To say that it is a feminist agenda to abuse the court system is simply incorrect. If you are able to find a feminist manifesto which dictates its followers to break laws and lie in court, I would love to see it. But as it stands, greed is a separate attribute from feminism. That is not to say that not a single feminist is not greed, of course people are drive by the prospect of easy money, but this applies to men and women, feminist and anti-feminist. If greed was exclusive to feminism, why have so many men been imprisoned for white collar crimes like tax evasion?
I think it is important to understand that Feminism is an actual sociological term with a set definition. Not all feminist are men-haters. Some are and they are called radical feminists. These are the women whose agenda is to break down the family institution because they believe it is a system of oppression. It are the radical feminists who are truly a threat to the family as we know it. That said, just like any radical group they tend to be fewer in number but have a greater presence in the mainstream media.
There are also liberal feminists whose main agenda is equal opportunities, similar to the efforts of African Americans during the civil rights movement of the 1950s. They are people promoting “equal pay for equal work.
Hereorthere, I am not sure I understand your logic in the following passage:
“Those trying to claim; There supposedly, is no feminist agenda being pushed in these cases, are proving there is. Because they automatically reject ANYTHING that does not automatically and always blame the man, in each and every case.”
The denial of something does not automatically support or prove the opposite of that. Denying the corruption of the courts does not necessarily mean an individual supports ignoring any evidence that does not support the woman’s case. The logic simply does not follow.
I quoted this from one of your earlier posts:
“1) Physical/emotional Abuse
2) Cheating
3) Lying before marriage
4) Drug and alcohol abuse”;;;;;;;;;;;;;
And in Crown Heights or Williamsburg how often does a case like this come up?
Very rarely unless you ARE talking about cases so mild, that they do not qualify as “bad marriages”.”
So although you said “and you falsly claimed that I had supposedly said that there is never any abuse in marriages and I never said anything like that.” it seems that you said something very much like that.
Hereorthere, I believe you are twisting my words and relying rather heavily on a personal anecdote. Firstly, I never said anything about the corruption that may lie behind some people, both men and women, when they involve the courts in their private relationships. I will agree that what you describe can and sometimes does happen. I think, though, that it is a far stretch to even say that this is the case most of the time. Do you honestly believe that so many people are so malicious in their pursuits for wealth and control? I think that perhaps many more of the people that you assume to be seeking out divorce deserve the benefit of the doubt that there are indeed serious problems involved. But if you look back to my original post, I never claimed that people never lie to get their way in court. A statement like that would be just as crazy as claiming that abuse never happens in a given community.
Secondly, I think that your definition of feminism is a little off. I know that this is not the place for such a discussion, but I will just say that siding with a woman does not automatically equal a feminist agenda (although depending on the motivation it can be, but may very well have nothing to do with what feminism actually is).
Hereorthere, I am so happy that you or your neighbors have never known the tzurus of living in a household where the two people are not meant to be together. Speaking from experience, there are times where divorce is absolutely necessary. Aside from your outlandish and ignorant claims that women and some men too never face any form of spousal abuse, claims which are not supported by your two examples that hardly apply to the situation of a family nor by statistical data, bad marriages do occur and it is often within the iron curtain of privacy allowed to the family institution that they flourish. Has it ever occurred to you that such instances might be beyond your knowledge because the parties involved fear shame and embarrassment from their situation?
And to those who believe the children are the greatest victims of a divorce: sometimes it is the children who have the most to gain. I am not talking about gaining material things because of alimony payments. I mean that when a couple stays together “for the sake of the children,” the onus of guilt that those children then have to carry with them for the rest of their lives is quite unbearable. It can do psychological damage and endanger the children’s own ability to form meaningful relationships in the future!
Quoting Poster, “In the “Chasidishe” world (where u have minimal dating), girls do not read non jewish books, have access to a TV, go to movies or read the NY Times. So while they are exposed to outside influences to an extent, their exposure is to a much a lesser degree, therefore there is a slimmer chance of getting “burnt”.”
I think you are totally missing my point! We have to stop saying my way is better than yours and start giving young people the tools they need for a successful relationship. Even if there is less outside influences and slimmer chances of getting burnt, as you say, they are still there! Their mere presense is something that every circle of Judiasm must address.
I was drawn to this topic because a friend of a friend of mine recently got divorced within just a year of getting married. The tragedy shocked me. I am not sure how long they dated for or even if they met through a shiduch, and personally, I do not think that is all that relevant. I think it is silly for us all to sit back and guess which type of community is more at fault for a rise in the number of broken engagements. The facts are young couples are breaking engagements and marriages more frequently than ever before.
I was the first of my circle of friends to get married. My husband’s parents and my parents grew up as neighbors, so in a sense we go way back. But now I am seeing all my friends navigate through the stressful world of shiduchim. They often explain that they feel lost and confused.
In my opinion the real problem is that young people nowadays have had more influence from the outside world. That is not to make a specific charge against feminism. Smaller influences, like the way in which we approach a topic like a relationship is altered because of the modern world. Young people then are in almost a unique situation in which they are trying to stick to a torah approach while subconsciously having to struggle with modernity as well. What we really need to do is education people dating and getting ready to get married, not necessarily through pre-marital therapy, but simply to let them know what they are getting themselves into. Marriages are never simply a happy ending; they take work and effort.
I know that I felt, when I was younger, that marriage meant everything was perfect. Before I married my husband, we met with his Rabbi from his yeshiva in Israel. The Rabbi gave us the greatest piece of advice I had ever received. He told us that we must remember arguments happen and it is the way in which they happen that we can use to work in our favor to better our relationship. I think messages like this are what young people need to hear. We need to let people know that its more than just having the same opinions, goals and hopes for the future. They need to know how to communicate.