From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:45:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.201637.21564@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.154006.23144@walter.bellcore.com> Lego writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.151319.13394@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>>Maybe a good deal of women YOU meet get that way - but considering that the
>>>only common denominator in each encounter is YOU, could it somehow
>>>be possible that their reaction to you is because of some action on
>>>YOUR part?  Do you perchance give these women the impression that they
>>>just aren't perfect enough?  Just asking.

Okay let's take this one step at a time. Nance you could be right but I for
one doubt it. Why, cause I have met far more women who are "too"
accommadating (especially in the beginning of a relationship) to the men
they are involved with than I have met women who are hmmm other than that
whatever that might be. Now it may be that a man who is a bit demanding may
bring that "mold me" behavior out in a woman where another man wouldn't but
its still the woman who is reacting and allowing herself to be molded. And
it is still true in this society that little girls are rewarded for being
good and nice and acommandating while little boys are rewarded for being
aggressive and adventuresome and independent. Its rare for a woman to get
over that kind of behavior without some life experience showing her that it
isn't such a great way to be. And that is the reason I think that there are
still more of the accommodating types amongst the female population.
Hopefully that is changing as we change the expectations we have for our
children. 

>>
>>Given that a common denominator with Nancy and Lana who have similar views
>>of independence is their prior bad experience with a relationship, is it
>>possible that women that haven't gone through that same experience may still
>>wish to compromise more than they should? Is it possible that there is more
>>such women than women like Nancy and Lana? Is it even remotely conceivable
>>that one has a greater chance of meeting such women than Nancy or Lana? Just
>>asking.
>
>Here we go again, as could be predicted:  Point/Counterpoint.

Well that is the nature of s.s. People state their opinion, other people
add to it or disagree. Why do you find it so offensive to have someone
disagree with you?
>
>Must we draw pictures?  Yes.  There are women who are willing to make the
>self-sacrifice of becoming whatever a man wants them to become (ie, haircolor,
>clothing style, interests, etc.) and they do so because they feel that people
>will probably like them if they do that.  They were probably raised that way.
>In some books that tendancy is referred to as "codependency."  (Hey!  That
>rhymes!!)  And certain women get over that yes, because of an experience or
>two they learn from and I bet the reason men don't encounter them every day is
>because they don't hang out in places just for the sake of being encountered.
>They're busy going about life in whatever way they chose to.  With exceptions
>of course.
>
Isn't this what Walter said ? Are you just disagreeing on the relative
numbers of these subgroups?

Besides there is a middle ground in all this. Many women, I for one, am
willing to make some changes in order to be able to live with another
person. Not just any other person but someone that I think is worth making
some of those changes for. I fully expect that he will also be making some
changes in his life to accommodate me. Being unable or unwilling to do this
generally makes one unfit for any kind of a shared life. 

>And there are exceptions to THAT, too, and I bet if you think real hard
>Walter you'll find them and post about them to refute what anybody 
>(especially ME, has anyone else noticed that?  I must remind him of someone
>he doesn't like or something) else thinks so you can get your $.02 up
>on your screen.  Doesn't it look nice?  But there are exceptions to that
>too because sometimes you DO post good valid points, but of course that's
>just MY opinion and ... 

Nance, this is a pure and simple ad hominom attack. I would have expected
better from you. Sorta sounds like "Mommy, Walter is picking on me, Walter
is a bully".
>>
>>I presume you are not speaking for all women.
>
>Bingo.  But there are exceptions to that because sometimes my opinions
>ARE shared by ALL women, except for the exceptions but I'll let Walter
>tell us what they all are.  He likes that.  With certain exceptions.

Nance read this again with a cooler mind. You speak for ALL women with the
exception of those that you don't speak for? Unless you stop and think a
bit more before posting stuff, then I would rather you didn't speak for me.
Does that make me one of those exceptions?

You seem to get really strident and hot under the collar when anyone
disagrees with you and I am wondering why?

Max