Dear Editor,
Very interesting, the debate about the President and his ex-wife. I am convinced men and women are mentally on a different wavelength, just as how very bright people think in a different way from the average person. Men tend to be pragmatic; women are inclined to be sentimental, intuitive.
Many years ago, when a friend of mine mentioned to her young husband about the spat her colleague had with her fiance because he flirted with a neighbour, the husband told her that the chap “doesn’t know how to handle women.” ‘Handle’ women? How patronising.
Not so long ago a few of us (husbands and wives) sat relaxing, reminiscing about our youthful days in Guyana. The names of people we all knew were mentioned, one being a chap we nicknamed ‘Sly,’ who was a Lothario in his day. We women were transfixed when the men mentioned how Sly was stringing two girls along at the same time. He took the newly acquired one to a party and was chatting her up, when the older one unexpectedly turned up.
Sly had his back turned to the door and did not see her enter; his friends were facing the door and immediately − literally − closed ranks, to block the old girl’s view, until Sly had time to sort himself out. It was a huge joke to them and they roared with laughter about it. We women were not amused.
While on the subject, I am anxiously looking forward to seeing how Mr Obama settles in. Let us hope his wife adjusts to her new life as quickly and as enthusiastically as he seems to have done. Very tough times lie ahead.
I think, in marriage, aiming for a compromise is best − a matter of give and take. Just trying to see each other’s point of view and finding an ‘accommodation’ should be one solution.
Yours faithfully,
G Dennison
Marriage is an institution, and a couple (man and woman) subscribe to the ordained laws therein. It is bigger than each or both combined, as such the occupants of such an institution is like the holder of an office, and must adhere to the laws governing that office.
Too often and for too long efforts at redefining marriage and the terms of understanding have led to many things other than the optimum benefit of such an institution. Compromise is one of man view of marriage, I wonder if anyone can say what God’s view is.
which god’s view? so many of ‘em…
You will meet one of them someday!
i gun put down me roti and say wha happenin deh!
Wrong headline. Should be: In marriage compromise is the norm.
Wrong Xiu. Marriage in Guyana depends on the pandit performing the ceremony. ISNM
the norm, the norm, i said. of course there are exceptions to the norm. lawd so hard fuh some people…
Marriage is a contract between two people from different back grounds, to materalise and nurture certain common golds and aspirations. The two should be One, in thought, only after they have together prevailed over a set of trying circumstances for the success of the union. No one partner should have dominance over the other partner. In the end, each partner, will individually, not collectively, give an account of his or her stewardship, to The Maker.
why some people need fear of a ‘maker’ to keep a contract? so them weak that it takes fear…
The maker of the union? What if it is someone who thinks its politically expedient to form that union? What if? ISNM
Midhael. You have missed my point. I am trying to disprove the theory, that “THE TWO WILL BECOME ONE.”
Ms G – women are still transfixed not only in Guyana but all over the world when a “SLY” of today is mentioned….
Mr. President should accept his mistakes, treat the lady like she should be treated. Deal with this situation like a civalised human being and and get this over with!! – then take some lessone on how to treat a woman.