Comments

[owner-smartmarriages]

from: Smart Marraiges 

Diane
I think most of Weiner-Davis's message in "When Nagging Doesn't Work" 
makes sense for parent-child relationships too, don't you?
Brenda
__________________
>I'm on the Goveror's side in the Arizona case, I'm afraid.  What right has 
government to 
>tell people they should be married.  Coercion!!!!  
>Marilyn Arnold

The legislation isn't about telling anyone they SHOULD be married.  It's 
about providing the tools people need in case they decide to try 
marriage. Which 85-90% of us still do.  And/or
to use the skills to have the most satisfying cohabiting relationship one 
can have.
The skills & courses that are being proposed in this legislation work for 
any
kind of relationship - married or not. -diane
__________________ 
And lots of comments on the Kathleen Parker piece on women choosing to 
be single mothers: 

<< I know three women who chose to become single mothers this past year 
who 
 would disagree with Parker's assessment.  They were older, with loudly 
clicking biological clocks, and they say the  would  have loved to have 
married but it's the men who aren't willing to commit.  These women have 
no 
contempt for marriage - but faced with the  decision to go childless or 
wait 
for marriage -  decided to go the unwed  route.  They say "the men can 
wait 
forever, we can't." 
 Comments??  - diane  >>

My question for these women would be, "What are you going to say to your 
children when they ask you why they don't have a father?  That no man 
valued 
you enough to be a full-time father to you?"  The biological urge to 
procreate is strong, yes, but we have to consider the bigger picture in 
our 
families;  to balance out our urges with the needs of our children 
(already 
here or only yearned for).  I think that I would also have encouraged 
these 
women to think about adoption of a child who already is lacking a mother 
and 
father, to provide at least one parent for someone who had none to begin 
with.   Whose need are they more concerned with fulfilling, their own ("I 
need a baby", making the baby an object) or a child's ("This child needs 
me", 
making themselves the answer to someone else's need)?  Which is the 
higher 
calling, to be served, or to serve?  To get needs met or to meet needs?
Martha Flemming, Therapist, New Source Counseling Centers, Ohio


Diane, 
In regard to Ms. Parker's column:  One could say that half of the
babies born in the U.S. in 1998 were born under circumstances where a man
fathered a child with no sense of caring for that child before he engaged 
in
intercourse.  Ms. Parker's column makes some good points but comes out
sounding like a diatribe against unwed mothers.  What about the Selfish,
Oafish, Boys who fathered the child?  The idea that all single mothers
deliberately chose motherhood is ludicrous.  It took a man and a woman to
behave selfishly and irresponsibly.  What would be more accurate would be
for Ms. Parker to accuse single mom's of choosing to let their baby come 
to
full term.
Henry L. Renn, M.Div., MFT

Diane:
Kathleen Parker is the best!  I love her columns.  And interestingly while
reading your forwards on this topic I found myself thinking, "Why are men
giving these women babies?"  And then I saw the hyperlink to dadi.com 
which
reinforced my belief.  But can we men really abstain?  Perhaps if we had a
corresponding tenfold increase in the prostitution industry!?(G).
Kevin Kervick
_______________________________

><< When the average marriage begins to pale, and the
> parents contemplate divorce, the mother is welcomed by
> the law with an array of incentives to go ahead with
> it. These incentives include custody of the children,
> child support, alimony, and a significant share of her
> husband's property, even when the breakdown of the
> marriage is her fault. Conversely, a father can expect
> to come out of divorce with corresponding losses of
> children, income, and property--and with the full
> power of the State marshaled against him to enforce
> his compliance. As divorce on these terms has become
> commonplace, men find that marriage has become
> emotionally and financially too risky. With the
> consequent breakdown of marriage as a stable
> institution--the odds of divorce are about
> 50%--children lose the protection and security that
> only an intact family can provide, and they react with
> aggressive and rebellious behavior. >>

>This sounds like a conservative's rationale for returning women to the 
>maritally-chained existence they had to endure during the era when women had 
>no rights.
>I support your site, but I think you should give more thought to the 
>ramifications of some ideas you extol.
>Pat Shelton
>



**************************
This FREE online newsletter shares information on marriage, divorce and 
skills-based educational approaches.  Opinions expressed are not 
necessarily shared by members of the Coalition.

Copyright © 2000 CMFCE. All rights reserved.

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to the list, mail majordomo at his.com
Leave the subject line empty. In the body of the 
message type: subscribe smartmarriages or unsubscribe smartmarriages 
(do this on the first line, do not skip a space at the top)

- to CHANGE YOUR ADDRESS, follow the directions to unsubscribe your old 
address and subscribe your new address.  

- this is a moderated list.  When you send a reply message it is read by 
Diane Sollee, director, only.  

Newsletter archive - all past posts to the newsletter:
http://archives.his.com/smartmarriages/index.html#start 

4th Annual Smart Marriages conference/June 29 - July 2, 2000, DENVER  
http://www.smartmarriages.com/conferencedetails.html 
for registration, hotel and travel information.
up to 57 hours CEU -APA, SW, MFT, NBCC, CFLE

List your program in the Directory of Providers at:
 http://www.smartmarriages.com/directory_browse.html 

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
Diane Sollee, Director
5310 Belt Rd. NW, Washington, DC 20015-1961
www.smartmarriages.com
202-362-3332  (FAX 202-362-0973)   Email: cmfce at smartmarriages.com