|
2 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2009 - 12:54AM
#12
|
|
|
I would think that "unhappy" would equal "unsuccessful" more than "uncoupled". I guess it depends on your meaning of success.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 25, 2009 - 4:07PM
#11
|
|
|
I was basing that on a study that showed women were less unhappy unmarried after divorce than men are and the reason given is that men are a lot of work. Also, women do not get longer lifespans with marriage as men do. Also, married women have been found to be more depressed than single women. I do have one correction on an earlier post. I stated that 51 women were born for every 49 men. That was a number that was touted for years. Apparentely, that has changed. It is now 105 men for every 100 women. However, the same source stated that more males die in infancy than females so the odds may still not be in favor of women. But, at least, at birth, we have better odds.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2009 - 2:45PM
#10
|
|
|
Generally, men benefit from marriage. They are more apt to find personal fulfillment. Women only benefit if their fulfillment comes from having children. Even then, only limited amounts.
If you're talking about "traditional" marriage, where the woman provides much more support for the man than the other way around, I'd say you're right. I'd never get married if that were the only option. But a good marriage is balanced.
In a balanced marriage, both parties give each other plenty of support. Both put in 110%. It's not a matter of one doing most of it. How that plays out in day to day life can vary. A mutually supportive marriage can mean both of them have careers, can mean there's a breadwinner and a homemaker, can mean anything in terms of who does which jobs. What matters is seeing themselves as equals, and each giving as much as the other. I know a married couple who've had a traditional setup for years--he's the breadwinner, she takes care of home and kids. Now she's going back to school, and will probably end up earning more than him if it all goes as planned. Meanwhile, he's still supporting the family and also doing more around the house and with the kids, so she can go to class and study. That's what I'd call mutually supportive.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2009 - 10:29PM
#9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2009 - 10:28PM
#8
|
|
|
appy20: A man wrote the book and introduced the whole idea of needing a spouse to help him reach his full potential. It did cross my mind that a married man might benefit more from marriage than a married woman in some ways. Traditionally, women are the "helpers." So, while the husbands may be benefitting from a supportive wife, it might not be a reciprocal relationship all the time.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2009 - 7:18PM
#7
|
|
|
I have been very successful in my life and I am single. I was married but it did not last. I worked, raised my children alone and they are all wonderful people, and I earned a Master's degree. I can understand that some folks need a spouse, but there are those, because of circumstances, don't ever have one, but can still be a productive person. Some folks don't want to get married, and are successful. Have a great day....shalom!!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 17, 2009 - 5:44PM
#6
|
|
|
We have to be ok with and within ourselves...first and foremost.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 17, 2009 - 9:36AM
#5
|
|
|
Generally, men benefit from marriage. They are more apt to find personal fulfillment. Women only benefit if their fulfillment comes from having children. Even then, only limited amounts.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2009 - 10:16PM
#4
|
|
|
I suppose having the wrong spouse might detract from being your best. Because then you'd be putting so much energy into dealing with an unhealthy marriage that you wouldn't have enough for the rest of your life. Having the right spouse is life enhancing, but that doesn't mean everyone should have a spouse. It's also life enhancing to get a Phd or go trekking in the Himalayas, but that doesn't mean everyone should be obligated to do those things.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2009 - 9:40AM
#3
|
|
|
First of all, it is mathetmatically impossible for women. 51% of female births to 49% male births. Plus, more males die of accident during teen years. Thus reducing the ratio even greater. There are many genetic illnesses that strike males more than females, some of which cause death or severe debility. Then war knocks out more males. In my generation alone, 50,000 were killed in Vietnam and the overwhelming majority were men. Now we have Iraq and Afghanistan. We begin with a gene pool working against us. That is before we start reducing the number according to quality.
|
|
|
