Not All Divorcees Are Sour on Marriage
I wish to respond to the article, "Fewer mid-life divorces leading to remarriage" (Dec. 7). I feel that this item was researched with only a limited number of individuals and is somewhat stilted.
The statement that these women found marriage a vice is the clincher. These women's quotations do not necessarily reflect the views of all divorced/widowed women.
Having been divorced 11 years and having undergone experiences similar as those interviewed on self sufficiency, I propose to offer another viewpoint.
I belong to several singles groups and have had the opportunity of observing and listening to both men and women of a variety of age groups.
Yes, I have seen embittered women, unhappy in a marriage, escape, as well as men. It is entirely possible these individuals should never have married in the first place.
I have noticed that a number of divorced men in mid-life often marry younger women, which may lead to the numerical changes in the figures of available men for marriage to the middle-aged female.
Could the statement that women are learning to be self sufficient and are choosing singleness rather than losing their independence be a cover-up statement as to why women are not marrying?
I personally feel that it is entirely possible that some men may feel denigrated by these feelings of superiority (in the female) in the ongoing male/female battle and are not interested in marrying a domineering female, or for that matter even dating them.
Sure, we second-time-around single females can eat if/when we want, go to bed when we like, look sloppy, keep a messy house, (sounds like dorm years), etc., but this can get to be boring and tiresome as the years go on and there is no other adult in the household to share the good or bad news of the day's events.
Certainly there are those individuals who truly like living alone, and they are certainly entitled to their rights, but they are not speaking for all of us. Personally, speaking for some of us who have been out there single for years, it would be very nice to have someone to come home to, or be at home for, to share the day's events and to give and receive a great big hug and kiss.
At whatever stage we are in life, let's take off the boxing gloves, focus on the positive, call a truce between the genders, give mutual respect to each other, and look for and appreciate the best qualities that both genders have. We really do need each other. The high divorce rate and often subsequent problems in the children left behind warrant attention to this fact. . .
In reading Michael Medved's commentary on today's movies and television (Dec. 6, Dec. 7), I found myself nodding in response to many of the points that he makes.
Mr. Medved stresses the horrors of violence and profanity on the movie and television screens of today. I agree fully that, while action and violence sometimes manage to keep a person interested in a program, it does really degrade our society.
I also agree that adults and minorities are harassed unnecessarily, and I think that shows should stress the values of good decision-making, creating believable characters that adolescents can look to as positive role models.
But also, in Mr. Medved's criticism of Disney's "The Little Mermaid," I think he was taking his opinion a bit too far. I believe that movies and television shows must portray life, and life is full of disobedience, prejudices and misunderstandings.
While producers should be careful not to glorify sin, they must also create "real" situations. Some shows stereotype blonds, elderly people or overweight individuals in a derogatory manner that creates the idea in young minds that "all of these individuals must act this way," and this type of thinking contributes to the downgrading of society.
In conclusion, I'd like to say that I know that producers think that sex and violence equal success, but is a lump sum of money really worth the mental death of the next generation?
Who will be our new secretary of defense? What will he do?
Will he continue selling weapons and military equipment worth $32.7 billion to 154 nations and try to defend his Pentagon by improving our 30,000 nuclear weapons?
I hope he will understand that our atomic bomb on Hiroshima changed everything. Stalin was threatened and made nuclear bombs. The Cold War began. The military establishments grew and took over the economies. We have a huge debt.
. . . Ten bombs could destroy civilization and there are thousands of bombs all over the world. We cannot prevent their use. All we can do is set a good example.
Let us defend America and the world by using our huge military-industrial complex to build schools, bridges, transportation, housing and all we need for education, research and better ways of living.
No More Lots
Those of us who care about the fabric of the city, whether it be North Charles Street, the financial district or whatever, should protest the demolition of the buildings at 131 E. Redwood Street and 26 S. Calvert Street. These buildings represent what is so charming about Baltimore -- humanly scaled, interesting, if not .. grand facades and nicely detailed.
What we don't need are more parking lots as we destroy that which makes Baltimore unique. We have listened too long to developers' promises (now that's an oxymoron) to rebuild more splendidly.
The city is beginning to take on a gap-toothed look that is clearly unpleasant. Let the imagined dollars take a back seat to the already built environment.
Jane B. Wilson
Time to End Reefer Madness?
Now that we Americans have elected both a president and a vice-president who have smoked marijuana, isn't it about time that we stopped locking people up for this "crime?"