Reply #195: We agreed actually...

[izzybeans]

She stated that there were different types of negotiations. this conformed to what I said since negotiation is a term indicating an open process. In her case the decisions is absolutely hers that's how she wants it. Other relationships are much different. Some people want or even need input-which puts decision making power in the hands of others in non-quanitifiable terms. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum unless you aren't open to discussion-and even then your decisions are institutionalized from a source not of your own creation. For some people, like lioness, this works, for others it doesn't. It used to work for my wife and I until we got pregnant, suddenly a whole lot of things we assumed about our relationship and our politics had to be reevaluated. I agree that the final straw lies with the women, but to preclude involvement of the father in all situations ignores a whole lot of reality. Yes there are situations were this is necessary-those examples are easier to combine-but only because they are more sensational/less mundane. In everyday terms, A professor of sociology would logically conclude that his input was taken in by his wife, interpreted and necessarily involving him in the process, even when his wife is also a sociologist far superior to himself. That's why the term negotiation was used because it's involved in most decisions. I think giving universal answers to a complex phenomenon is foolish. For me feminist theory would suggest that the decisions be locally based and non universal across all relationships. Lioness gave me her personal answer, my wife's is different, she no longer agrees with that sentiment. Our solution shouldn't determine someonelse's. Lioness can be who she wants. That sort of absolutism just didn't work anymore for us. I guess she reminded me of me a few years back-but mostly of my wife. That's all my point was.