Xavier

The Glory of Men is the Woman

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

As a woman though, I am so grateful I live now and not the 1950s.  Going back to the 1950s lifestyle is not the solution to our present issues.  

You're quite obviously thinking of a particular man who treated you or someone you love unfairly or downright diabolically.  It is no wonder that you would then feel this way.  I too would want to run away from that time in my life as well.  And I hope you understand my meaning when I say that I know exactly what it feels like.

But I'd ask this question about this man.  Would he have been a better man if he had been raised in this decade with its disrespect for life, marriage, family, God, and personal responsibility?  Or would he have been even worse?  I think of the person in my mind and I know my lot would have been worse.  Much worse.

I don't blame the 50s for producing some bad people.  They would have been evil anyway.  But today, I can easily forgive people who simply do evil because that's all they have been taught.  They simply don't know any better.  I blame the society that produces such people in abundance and relishes in it, celebrating death and lasciviousness, and condemning civility and faith in God.  The evil people of the 50s knew they were evil.  The evil people of today?  Many of them simply don't know any better.

 

And with that, I think I shall exit the forums.  Thank you all, everyone. You've been wonderful.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mores said:

You're quite obviously thinking of a particular man who treated you or someone you love unfairly or downright diabolically.  It is no wonder that you would then feel this way.  I too would want to run away from that time in my life as well. 

No, quite the opposite actually.  I was thinking that the wonderful, respectful relationship that I have with my husband...one of mutual respect...could not have existed in the 1950s.

I love being a mom...I wouldn't trade it for anything.  But at the same time, I am grateful that I live in a time, place and culture that gives me opportunities to develop all the talents the Lord has blessed me with.  I didn't marry until I was 28, and I seriously thought that perhaps I would not have that opportunity in this life.  I worked in corrections at the time, and one of our wardens was a woman.  It was exciting to know that if I couldn't have my first choice...to be a wife and mom, there were many other things I could do.    

Since Pres. Nelson's talk Spiritual Treasures in the last Conference I have been studying and understanding so much more about my place in God's plan.  Right now, is a great time to be alive, especially for women in our church.  I wouldn't trade it!  

 

Quote

And I hope you understand my meaning when I say that I know exactly what it feels like.

I'm sorry you had that experience.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think D&C 121:39 Applies to this conversation

Quote

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men (And women lets not be sexist after all), as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

If the Lord is pointing out this tendency in people then we should not be surprise that it shows up.  We should expect to see it in almost all men and almost all women as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose.

If the cultural has given the authority to the men then we can and should expect them to demonstrate it.  If the cultural shifts and gives authority to the women then we should expect it from the women.  This we see in the various cultures that have arisen including our current one.

The answer is not to shift who has the power and authority.  The answer is the one the Lord gives... to teach those in authority what is expected of them in the exercise of it, and if offenses keep happening anyways to remove said authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Right now, is a great time to be alive

Preach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vort said:

 The US was the world's true superpower, and seemed to be using its unparalleled worldwide reach and influence to try to establish liberty around the world.

Personally, I'd consider the 1950's to be among the most corrupt politically in the USA because of the testing of biological and chemical warfare sustances on it's own people, along with medical experiements on orphans and the mentally disabled.

Here are some of them that are known to have happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Big_Buzz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Drop_Kick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_May_Day

 

20 hours ago, Vort said:

Women had their place in society, just as men did. Women understood that place, and most of them gloried in it. A typical middle-class American woman of the 1950s sought to become a wife and mother, to build a family, to keep an orderly and loving household, just as her husband sought to provide economic means and comfort for that household and widen the circle of his family's well-being.

For sure it was a tough time for single mothers.  My grandmother used to always talk about how hard it was being a single mother in the 1950's.  There were laws preventing women from working that many hours and they had to be sent home to allow men to work the rest of their shifts.   According to here at least, more people were helped each other out during the depression and WWII, but her perception was that it dropped off in the 1950's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

No, quite the opposite actually.  I was thinking that the wonderful, respectful relationship that I have with my husband...one of mutual respect...could not have existed in the 1950s.  
 

I disagree with this completely.  I have an entire society of grandparents that prove this wrong.

What I gathered from your post is that you put your hat of respect on the woman having no opportunities for a career.  This is the biggest error of the Feminist Movement - the idea that full-time Motherhood is not respectable.  The idea that "unless I can do what a man can do we're not equal".  Societal traditions in the old days was structured around the lack of technology and opportunities that women have today.  In the olden days, women stay home when they have their periods.  They didn't have the privilege of tampons.  My mother grew up in the 40's and monthly sanitation consisted of something akin to a ginormous cloth diaper.  Women stay home when they were pregnant.  They didn't have the privilege of ultrasounds and high-tech medical facilities.  Women stayed home until the baby is weaned from breastmilk.  Feeding babies off formula, gerber, and baby bottles was not a thing.  And because women were having to stay home so much, then they do the home things - maintaining a well-organized, clean, and peaceful home while men bust their bums at the factories - and organizing societal things - like community service.  These were things women took pride in - the organization of their homes and societies, the discipline of their children, etc. etc.  They had a very vital role in life, equally (if not more so) than the factory.

Human progress have led to men inventing things so women get all this opportunity to not stay in the house.  They don't need to anymore.  Even when they have periods, get pregnant, have kids to care for.  So now women are clamoring for "equality".  They want to be CEOs and Scientists and Presidents... do they clamor to clean ditches and collect trash and work heavy machinery?  No.  Because that's just not what women like to do.  Women like the same things they liked when they were staying home more often - care services, organization services, management.  But now, they don't want to do it for their own homes - they want to do it outside the home.  Which means - their vital importance in society - that of Motherhood, managing children house and home - is left for other people to do.  So now they complain that men aren't doing Motherhood even as men are still cleaning ditches and collecting trash that women don't like doing.  But the craziness of all this is that Women also believe Men staying home to do the "Motherhood" job is also unrespectable.  Women - even Career Women - want to marry Men who make a lot of money - even more than they make.  So now, the responsibility of raising children is left like a hot potato with no takers.

So no.  Just because there are lesser opportunities for women to be Career Woman back in the day doesn't mean they were disrespected.  They held a vital role in society that they are ditching today.  Personally, I believe Women ditching the vital and very satisfying role of Mother and putting such as an unrespectable choice has caused great damage to today's society.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I disagree with this completely.  I have an entire society of grandparents that prove this wrong.

That entirely depends on how personal she was being.  If she meant that she personally (or her husband) could not have been happy... Well can't really argue with that because she would know that better then anyone else.  However that would also clearly be a personal issue not a social one.  If however she was speaking in more general terms (like you took it) then I would have to add my list of grandparents and other relations to yours in the proof against category.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

That entirely depends on how personal she was being.  If she meant that she personally (or her husband) could not have been happy... Well can't really argue with that because she would know that better then anyone else.  However that would also clearly be a personal issue not a social one.  If however she was speaking in more general terms (like you took it) then I would have to add my list of grandparents and other relations to yours in the proof against category.

 

You are right estradling75.  I interpreted her post as a statement in general terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@anatess2 makes some very good points.  I think I understand her but perhaps not as much as I should.  It is good to make attempts to see the view of others.  There are a hand full of posters that have had more of an effect on my thinking than they may realize.  However, I want to say something about what I see as a "current" trend in society.  I call it the "ME" trend.  Often in discussions like this thread, that deal with how things were or how they were perceived to be compared to how they are now or perceived to be now - the arguments are based on specific individual benefits.  Success is most often measured in terms of money.  Both in how much a person has and how much they can earn.  Money as the measure of success is a mistake - both in physical terms as well as spiritual terms.  It is a grand lie that is so fun to believe.

I was an outstanding student and earned a scholarship for my college of my choice.  Getting grades in school was part of my expectations of life.  I though I was successful.  While in college I started 3 businesses and when I finished school - I had to take a cut in my earnings.  I thought I was successful and fulfilling my potential.  I met my now wife during my last year of school.  I thought I was well prepared for life and marriage - I had also completed my military obligation.  It was different for my wife.  She struggled with school and was more of a social light (cheer leader).  Of course she was good looking but she also was a skilled seamstress and an excellent cook.  She was raised by a skilled lady that was a proficient entertainer in that her mother organized and put on elegant social events.  I thought she would be an excellent addition (wife) for myself.  I was thinking mostly in terms of my personal benefit.  I saw her as a benefit for me.  I also thought I was a fine catch for her - someone that would provide well for her.

I was not wrong - this woman has been my greatest benefit.  However, I quickly learned that she saw the world very differently than I did.  I was good at making money and that is what I thought a "man" was suppose  to do.  My wife was wonderful and took care of everything at home.  She organized everything and kept a spotless home.  But there was more.  Wherever we went she made best friends.  She found means to comfort everybody and when there were tense moments she would calm everybody.  She dealt with problems in ways I had never seen before - she can tell people they have made a horrible mistake and they would thank her for it.

My wife has an amazing testimony and is deeply spiritual but she does not like reading scripture - she defiantly is not a scripture scholar - I do not think she has read the Book of Mormon more than twice and I do not think she has read any of the other standard works cover to cover.  And yet she is an amazing teacher.  While she was teaching gospel doctrine she would bring one prominent member of our ward (the stake patriarch) to tears.  He has been known to correct those giving lessons and is mostly critical but not with my wife.  She would never discuss a gospel topic on the forum - she will only express herself face to face.  She is impossible to argue with when we have a disagreement - she just looks at me with tears and says she is sorry - even if she was all in the right.  And yet she never backs down - like I said she has this way of telling you - you are wrong and you what to thank her for it.  She has outsmarted me every time I have challenged her.

Why am I telling this very personal thing.  Because life is not about individual success - the most important success is family.  The most important potential any person has is family.  The glory of a man before G-d is the woman and the glory of a woman before G-d is the man.  The man that fails his wife fails G-d and all humanity - likewise the woman that fails her husband fails G-d and all humanity.  The only opportunity that matters is family.  I realize that not all will find their potential in this life.  Never-the-less the only success that matters is what success we learn and prepare in marriage.

 

The Traveler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So no.  Just because there are lesser opportunities for women to be Career Woman back in the day doesn't mean they were disrespected.  They held a vital role in society that they are ditching today.  Personally, I believe Women ditching the vital and very satisfying role of Mother and putting such as an unrespectable choice has caused great damage to today's society.

Nope.  I wasn't thinking of being Career Woman.  

I was thinking of two things: decision making in the couple and education.  In the 1950's it appears that decisions in a couple were made in "executive" fashion, i.e. the man made the decisions.  Today, things tend to be much more egalitarian, couples make decisions by consensus.  Which is the Lord's way, that men and women work together, different roles, yes, but both having equal value in the partnership.  

Education for women in the 1950's was mostly home education, and passing time until they got married.  Today women have many more opportunities for education.  You might be thinking, "That's what, i said--careers."  But education isn't just about getting a career.  Women can use their talents and their education in many ways both in and outside of the home.  Besides as you know, kids eventually grow up and leave the home...which is another great time for a woman to use her time, talents and education.   

Like you, I value the role of mothers.  I would wish for every child to have a stay at home mom, but that isn't always possible.  However, there are other factors that effecting families....cohabitation and divorce are big ones affecting our society today.  

And yes, I was speaking in general terms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Nope.  I wasn't thinking of being Career Woman.  

I was thinking of two things: decision making in the couple and education.  In the 1950's it appears that decisions in a couple were made in "executive" fashion, i.e. the man made the decisions.  

First - I am a 5th generation LDS.  I do realize that there are differences in different homes but I know in my own home as I was growing up decisions were not an executive parent.  Mostly my father dealt with the boys and mother dealt with the girls and small children in the family.  However, in the home my mother had first word.  This was much the same pattern from my ancestor's journals and this includes my great grandparents that were polygamists.   If women were oppressed in the home during the 1950's - it was not backed by law.   I have a son-in-law that is a lawyer and currently works to prosecute home and family abuse for the state.  Even with public outcry and law to prevent such things - most abuse currently prosecuted involve women as victims.  

As for education - every class I had in school during the 50's and early 60's were co-ed.  This included K-12 and college.  The valedictorian of my high school class was a girl - who BTW was very popular.  Though there were very few ladies in my advanced college math, physics and engineering classes - it was by choice and not by any law or official policy.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Traveler remember I am speaking in general terms...not just the church (although I think we could both make our points with examples both in and out of the church.).  Did you see PC's thread about the different ratios of women vs men in college?  One of the reasons given why there are more young women in college now is that they have more opportunities.   About marriage, I'm glad your grandmothers were blessed, but that was not the norm, it's not even true across the board today, though we have come a long way (which is my point.)  

Let's say for a moment you are right though....then why the nostalgia about the 1950s if things are the same? 

Edited by LiterateParakeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I hear talk of oppression of women I remember a conversation I had will my wife's aunt.  She is a non member that married into a largish LDS family.  She is opinionated, headstong, and a bit of a control freak which meant she fit right in.

At one of the many family gathering we had she was going off on how the LDS faith oppresses it women.  And we were largely just rolling with it because that was the kind of thing she did.  But after awhile I got kind of tired of it. So I addressed her had asked her if she would say that she thought she knew a lot of LDS women?  Thinking of the family she had gotten to know since being married she said yes.  Then I asked of all the In-laws and nieces (and I named a few) and others that she knew how many would she say are afraid to speak their mind? How many if they feel they are being wronged are afraid to speak up? After some thought she came up with one person, a friend, she knew that was in a bad marriage.  I was like ok so from you personal experience with a lot LDS women you can only think of one.  How can you from your personal experience call it a culture of oppression, of you see that oppression is the exception not the rule?  How is that not instead more of a result of bad individual choices?  She thought about that and then moved on to different topics.

The simple fact is the past was neither universally bad nor universally good... it was mixed just like every other time.  And like all other it was different, but different does not mean better or worse.  Better or worst is a judgment call based on whatever personal standards one wishes to apply

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 She is a non member that married into a largish LDS family.  She is opinionated, headstong, and a bit of a control freak which meant she fit right in.

LOL!
 

Quote

At one of the many family gathering we had she was going off on how the LDS faith oppresses it women.  And we were largely just rolling with it because that was the kind of thing she did.  But after awhile I got kind of tired of it. So I addressed her had asked her if she would say that she thought she knew a lot of LDS women?  Thinking of the family she had gotten to know sense married she said yes.  Then I asked of all the In-laws and nieces (and I named a few) and others that she knew how many would she say are afraid to speak their mind? How many if they feel they are being wronged are afraid to speak up? After some thought she came up with one person, a friend, she knew that was in a bad marriage.  I was like ok so from you personal experience with a lot LDS women you can only think of one.  How can you from your personal experience call it a culture of oppression, of you see that oppression is the exception not the rule?  How is that not instead more of a result of bad individual choices?  She thought about that and then moved on to different topics.

I agree.  I think the Lord, and His church are generally ahead of the times when it comes to treatment of women.  And I think as we learn, what the Lord intends for us, we get better and better.  :) 

Quote

The simple fact is the past was neither universally bad nor universally good... it was mixed just like every other time.  And like all other it was different, but different does not mean better or worse.  Better or worst is a judgment call based on whatever ever personal standards one wishes to apply.

I agree with this as well.  I'm glad I live now and not in the 1950s, but that doesn't mean that I think it was universally bad.  I mean they had great music, poodle skirts and Fonzi!  Just kidding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested, this is fascinating, IMO.   I felt validated, and learned things I didn't know....win/win.    :)   I found this while looking for something else, serendipity.

The Women's Revolution - BYU Kennedy Center
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXIfaGGEZE

Edited by LiterateParakeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree.  I think the Lord, and His church are generally ahead of the times when it comes to treatment of women.  And I think as we learn, what the Lord intends for us, we get better and better.  :)

Speaking of being ahead of its time... I heard a story one that when Utah was being considered for state-hood it was also going to include a woman's right to vote. (Which would have made Utah the first state to do so).  The powers that be figured that the LDS women with the power of the vote would then throw off the oppression of polygamy.  After all what could possibly be more oppressive to women then polygamy.. right?  Well it turned out as they studied the issue, that LDS women would not, they had Faith and Believed.  Learning that Utah got delayed and another state became the first to allow women to vote.

My take away from that   is the dangers of assuming that someone doing or living a life style that we might think is oppressive is oppressed... Because the person living it might not agree with you and if that is the case well it is there call or make not ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Speaking of being ahead of its time... I heard a story one that when Utah was being considered for state-hood it was also going to include a woman's right to vote. (Which would have made Utah the first state to do so).  The powers that be figured that the LDS women with the power of the vote would then throw off the oppression of polygamy.  After all what could possibly be more oppressive to women then polygamy.. right?  Well it turned out as they studied the issue, that LDS women would not, they had Faith and Believed.  Learning that Utah got delayed and another state became the first to allow women to vote.

My take away from that   is the dangers of assuming that someone doing or living a life style that we might think is oppressive is oppressed... Because the person living it might not agree with you and if that is the case well it is there call or make not ours.

The above is somewhat correct, but the entire real story is really complex as well as fascinating. 

Both the Church and its opponents supported women’s suffrage.   You would think that that would make it easy to get women’s suffrage pushed through, but it didn’t since the two sides wanted women’s suffrage for different reasons. 

Viewpoint 1

Women voting = possible end of polygamy

It was the New York Times who made the proposal that if women were allowed to vote that they could outvote polygamy. Many opponents of the Church (or perhaps more specifically polygamy) wanted suffrage for this reason.

Viewpoint 2

Women voting = more political power and would show that women weren’t repressed

Brigham Young supported women’s suffrage because he felt that more voters would give the Utah Territory (and hopefully Utah State) more political power since it at the time had a smaller population.  Brigham Young also had the hope that giving women the right to vote would show to the outside world that women were not repressed in the territory.

The problem was that the Church voted as a bloc and the Church (whether directly in many cases, or indirectly) decided who the members were going to vote for.    This led to mistrust among the opposition that women really were going to have their free will to vote and led to the fear that their votes would just be dictated or turned in by the Church anyway.

In the Utah Territory there were women’s groups both supporting and opposing (even in the Church-which led to excommunications) polygamy. 

Women were allowed to vote in some elections in the Utah Territory before statehood.    The Edmunds Tucker Act put an end to this.

The thing about the Edmunds Tucker Act was that it banned everyone who supported polygamy from voting.   This was also true not only for polygamist, but basically all Church members, even those who didn’t practice polygamy because it was said that being a member of the Church is supporting polygamy whether or not you practiced it.  

All women outside the Church weren’t allowed to vote either since it was stripped away during the act for non-Mormons (they were called that at the time) as well.

As Utah pushed for statehood, women once again asked for suffrage.  This was granted in the State Constitution when Utah became a state in 1896.

Anyway, because of all of the above, and the delay in statehood and suffrage, it was Wyoming who was the first state to give women the right to vote.  It wasn’t without opposition there either.

Congress insisted that Wyoming rescind the right for women to vote if they wanted to become a state.   Wyoming basically told them to stick it and that they would rather remain a territory if they couldn’t give women the right to vote.  Congress gave in and Wyoming became the first state to give women the right to vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 6:34 AM, Jane_Doe said:

A proper man of God isn't an misogynist.  A proper man of God respect and loves woman, and treats her has his equal help-mate.  The #MeToo movement supports this Christ-like behavior in encouraging people (of both genders) who've been hurt to speak up, and encouraging people (of both genders) to treat each other with respect.

I don't think any of what Paul said has anything to do with how men treat women but how women treat men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Traveler remember I am speaking in general terms...not just the church (although I think we could both make our points with examples both in and out of the church.).  Did you see PC's thread about the different ratios of women vs men in college?  One of the reasons given why there are more young women in college now is that they have more opportunities.   About marriage, I'm glad your grandmothers were blessed, but that was not the norm, it's not even true across the board today, though we have come a long way (which is my point.)  

Let's say for a moment you are right though....then why the nostalgia about the 1950s if things are the same? 

About 15 years ago I read a book - I believed it was titled "Generations".  In essence the book had a similar message as one of the messages of the Book of Mormon.  In essence that there are cycles and that hardship leads to strength and prosperity leads to weakness.   It is interesting to me how Jesus often voiced support for the poor and how with the next breath he criticized the wealthy.   The generation of my parents faced a great deal of difficulty.  They were children during the depression.  My maternal grandparents were not unemployed but supplemented  their income raising chickens.  They were considered quite wealthy at the time but my mother worked hours every day candling eggs and cleaning chicken coops. My fraternal grandparents were of the same pattern but supplemented their income raising sheep.  However they were lower class and raised 14 children in a 3 bedroom home.

When my father purchased his first home he constructed an apartment in the basement and the rent paid the mortgage.   I grew up thinking we were poor.  Most of our yard was dedicated to a garden and the raising of chickens and rabbits - mostly for meat.  Every year we hunted deer for extra meat.  We also fished but I personally hated fishing - I thought it a grand wast of my time.  When I returned from my mission I learned that despite our modest home and beater car - we were very wealthy.  My father explained to me that rich kids are more of a greater threat to a moral and peaceful society then criminals.  I did not believe it then - As soon as I finished college I moved to the east coast to get as far away (and out from the shadow) of my father.  I thought I could improve on my past and make things better for my kids.

I will tell everybody what I learned - It is much easier to tell your kids no when you do not have enough money for foolish things.  If you have plenty of money - purchasing foolish things does not seem that big of a deal.  Most of my marriage I have lived in what I call a BMW neighborhood. - but I have never been able to lavish earned money on cars.  When we moved back to Utah we had a VW bug and a VW buss.  The ward member thought we were hippies.   Mostly because of my background - I thought my kids should work even though I made enough that it was not necessary.  Our family (including grand kids) are more old school.

Are things better than in the 50's?  The truth is that some things are and some things are not.  We spend more money on food and more people are overweight.  As a scientist I realize that we have advanced in science and knowledge a great deal in my lifetime - but we are more divided as a country.  If we could keep the good stuff and discard the bad - that would be wonderful.  But we seem to invent new bad stuff (internet pron) and disconnect for good - like growing and providing basic things instead of buying everything.   My wife and I were talking about our growing up in a grandson's high school history class.  We mentioned that we had been married for about 45 years - one girl in the class asked why we stayed married.  My wife said - that when we grew up - when thing broke - we fixed them.  Now days we just throw them away and buy new.  --  I think my wife was right.  I think new thing may seem better but I prefer keeping the past and fixing what was broken.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Traveler said:

Are things better than in the 50's?  The truth is that some things are and some things are not. 

I agree.  It seems like sometimes people look back on the past as "the good 'ole days" as if they were perfect, but I agree with you...there is good and bad in every generation.  And it will be so until the Millennium.  More and more though I find myself following in the footsteps of Pres. Hinkley and Pres. Monson and feeling more and more optimistic about the day we live in.  We are not without our problems to be sure, but once again, as a woman, I'm glad to be on earth now.   

Quote

My wife and I were talking about our growing up in a grandson's high school history class.  We mentioned that we had been married for about 45 years - one girl in the class asked why we stayed married.  My wife said - that when we grew up - when thing broke - we fixed them.  Now days we just throw them away and buy new.  --  I think my wife was right.  I think new thing may seem better but I prefer keeping the past and fixing what was broken.

I love this and agree.  Congratulations on 45 yers, by the way.  My husband and I just reached 25 last year.   Your analogy about fixing broken things is spot on, I might have to use that some time! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 My husband and I just reached 25 last year.   Your analogy about fixing broken things is spot on, I might have to use that some time! 

I had to chuckle a little - When you got married I purchased the car I am driving  (BTW the wife's car is only half as old).  Mine is a suburban and has become a utility vehicle for pulling our multi purpose utility and camping trailer, our businesses, camping (white water rafting) and the swag for long distance cycle excursions and the vehicle for my brothers and I to go skiing with.   The only problem with such an older car is that we no longer have any cassette tapes that will work in the once state of the art sound system.  😁  Many friends (and my wife's family) ask why we do not purchase a new car with all the latest gadgets?  Really??? Spend $60,000 so my car can do what my phone does????  The car is in excellent condition.  A car is likely the worse possible investment - especially if a struggling family is purchasing something different every 5 to 10 years or less.   Keeping cars is one good thing that has made it to the next generation in our family.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

  A car is likely the worse possible investment - especially if a struggling family is purchasing something different every 5 to 10 years or less.   Keeping cars is one good thing that has made it to the next generation in our family

 

I'm with you on that! My hubby and I always buy used vehicles and drive them until they die....of until I get in an accident with a drunk driver (which was how a beloved minivan died.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm with you on that! My hubby and I always buy used vehicles and drive them until they die....of until I get in an accident with a drunk driver (which was how a beloved minivan died.)  

I got my car at 18K miles back in 2010.  I was able to catch it on video when the meter rolled to 200K last Saturday on our way to the temple.  We celebrated its 200K day with an expensive steak dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I got my car at 18K miles back in 2010.  I was able to catch it on video when the meter rolled to 200K last Saturday on our way to the temple.  We celebrated its 200K day with an expensive steak dinner.

So you went from the temple to the nearby steak center?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now