You've got a point there. But don't you think that the above joke jumps to conclusions by assuming that man needs woman, and woman needs man? Let's stop for one minute and ask ourselves what happens if it turns out that the woman does not need the man, and what if the man doesn't need the woman?
posted
In the first one, a woman can be somebody without her man. The second one is akin to the saying that behind every successful man is a woman. After all is said and done, they need each other.
___________________ Forward ever, backward never! Posts: 1874 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
AW, Good observation. I think in the first one, it really says the opposite: that in order to be something, Woman needs her man. Hence, the statement: Woman, without her man, is nothing. The second one seems to suggest that without woman, man is nothing. That may be the one that you are referring to. But are we really sure that this implies that both the woman and the man are married in this instance? How do we know for a fact? I guess we can say it's all a matter of interpretation and punctuation.
Posts: 12 | From: Babylon | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
