Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!iwsam!kca
From: kca@iwsam.UUCP (archie)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.social
Subject: Re: No fault divorce
Message-ID: <25@iwsam.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 18:03:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: iwsam.25
Posted: Tue Jul 15 18:03:44 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jul-86 04:47:25 EDT
References: <1056@watdragon.UUCP> <15040@ucla-cs.ARPA> <4054@sun.uucp> <3526@lll-crg.ARpA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 61
Xref: watmath net.women:11345 net.social:1207
Summary: losers at marriage doo wah doo wah

In article <3526@lll-crg.ARpA>, booter@lll-crg.ARpA (Elaine Richards) writes:
> In article <826@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes:
> >In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
> >>In article <5950@sri-spam.ARPA>, gds@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
> >>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
> >>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
> >>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
> >>> person)?
> >
> >I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but
> >I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on
> >which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
> 			   ^^^^^^
> >gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important.
> >
> 
> That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either
> they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how
> many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how
> to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair!
> > Not nice? get serious.  I assume that people who didn't get married
> > didn't want to get married (this may be wrong in some cases, but it
> > seems a more respectful point of view).  Why should it have to be "deep
> > in there"? There are many people with many reasons for not wanting
> > to be married.  I've read some of them on the net. What I resent a lot
> > is that if I say I have a happy marriage and that since I have a counter
> > example to the theory that MARRIAGE is always an oppressive, rotten
> > relationship that always deprives women of their freedom and individuality,
> > the theory isn't
> > correct, I am told ( by unmarried people, whatever their reasons or
> > circumstance) that I am just one case and not the norm, and that I have no
> > right to use my experience to attack their theory.  In fact, all they have
> > to justify their theory is their (selectivly viewed) experience.
> > Just because I preferred being married to being single doesn't give
> > me the right to assume there is something inherently wrong or inferior
> > about the state of singlehood except for a few isolated cases, which
> > is what a lot of single people say about marriage.  
> > I don't think people whose marriages or relationships ended are 'losers'
> > but they did fail at those relationships.  I don't think it's fair to
> > say something is bad because I personally made some mistakes at it.
> 
> Unmarried people are entitled to discuss marriage and divorce just as
> married people are entitled to discuss singleness. All of us may discuss
> going to the Moon, but not too many of us will get there.
> > But people who have been there know a lot more about walking on the
> > moon than you or I do from reading about it and watching it on TV.
> 
> Lighten up.
> 
> E
> *****

> > All married people were once single people, but not all single
> > people have been married.  Granted, they have probably observed
> > other people's marriages, but there's a difference between observing
> > something (watching somebody drive a car, hearing about somebody's
> > college experiences but not going to college yourself) and doing it
> > yourself.
> >

ihlpn!ihlpg!kapa