Don't Marry Career Women vs. Don't Marry A Lazy Man
ls
It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
various studies mentioned in the man's article.
I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html
Point: Don't Marry Career Women
By Michael Noer
How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social
scientists.
Guys: a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or
tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a
woman with a career.
Counterpoint: Don't Marry A Lazy Man
By Elizabeth Corcoran
Studies aside, modern marriage is a two-way street. Men should own up
to their responsibilities, too.
Girlfriends: a word of advice. Ask your man the following question:
When was the last time you learned something useful, either at home or
work?
Avenger
"ls" <lse...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1157151407.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
gingerbeer25
I thought it was a reasoned response to the first forbes article. I
don't believe in marriage to begin with because of the exploitation of
women, however if it is to be even a little successful it needs to be a
partnership. Men need to work as hard at home as they do at work
instead of women working the double day.
rdu...@pdq.net
A basic flaw in this argument is that it overlooks the fact that men
usually are not the ones demanding that this "work at home" be done. In
other words, most of the "work" women do at home is not work at all but
merely her hobby.
Work is what is done to meet the demands of someone else. If no one
is requiring or even asking you to do it, it is bogus to claim it is
work.
Think of a guy washing his car. Is that work or play? It all
depends on who is insisting that it be done. If your job demands a
clean looking car - then you can call it work. If only you care about
it, then it is a hobby. Most housework is the same.
Pussy Galore
"gingerbeer25" <ginger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157292892.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> ls wrote:
>> Here is the rebuttal to "Don't Marry Career Women".
>> It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
>> was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
>> defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
>> various studies mentioned in the man's article.
>>
>> I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
>>
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html
>>
>> Point: Don't Marry Career Women
>> By Michael Noer
>> How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social
>> scientists.
>> Guys: a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or
>> tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a
>> woman with a career.
>>
>>
>> Counterpoint: Don't Marry A Lazy Man
>> By Elizabeth Corcoran
>> Studies aside, modern marriage is a two-way street. Men should own up
>> to their responsibilities, too.
>> Girlfriends: a word of advice. Ask your man the following question:
>> When was the last time you learned something useful, either at home or
>> work?
>
> I thought it was a reasoned response
Oh you poor little girl.
to the first forbes article. I
> don't believe in marriage to begin with because of the exploitation of
> women, however if it is to be even a little successful it needs to be a
> partnership. Men need to work as hard at home as they do at work
> instead of women working the double day.
Really little girl do you believe men need marriage? They have nothing to
gain by it.
>
Pussy Galore
<rdu...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:1157303372.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> gingerbeer25 wrote:
>> ls wrote:
>> > Here is the rebuttal to "Don't Marry Career Women".
>> > It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
>> > was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
>> > defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
>> > various studies mentioned in the man's article.
>> >
>> > I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html
>> >
>> > Point: Don't Marry Career Women
>> > By Michael Noer
>> > How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social
>> > scientists.
>> > Guys: a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or
>> > tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a
>> > woman with a career.
And girls, please remember than pussy is cheap and common. I should know ;)
Why buy a donkey if you have a Ferrari.
>> >
>> >
>> >
Society
> It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address
> most of what was said in the man's article. The woman
> took it as a personal attack, defending herself and her
> marriage. She didn't even address the various studies
> mentioned in the man's article.
>
I'm not. Media-droids, even those at Forbes,
are quick to give women more than "equal time."
Thus, Forbes published the typical sort of
substitute for an argument commonly advanced
by women. I found the inadvertent self-undermining
blather of that angry career woman to be a clever
way for Forbes to bolster the arguments advanced
by the man who authored the article Forbes first
published. Tee hee.
--
These are fine, strident, confident assertions -- the
confidence displayed is, as with many other ideological
polemicists, in inverse proportion to the factual evidence
cited or even existing, just like the preacher who wrote
against a passage in his notes: "Argument weak -- SHOUT."
For Women's Libbers there are no facts, there are only
ideologically convenient assumptions. The truth is not
determined empirically but is defined as that which accords
with the aims of their movement and its current ideology.
Arianna Stassinopoulos, _The Female Woman_,
London: Davis-Poynter, Ltd.; New York: Random House, 1973
page 14.
Hyerdahl
rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
> gingerbeer25 wrote:
> > ls wrote:
> > > Here is the rebuttal to "Don't Marry Career Women".
> > > It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
> > > was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
> > > defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
> > > various studies mentioned in the man's article.
> > >
> > > I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
Well, I thought the article was at least as well written as the
original and that her points were valid.
Here's the 'rub', tho, Ralph. If a woman wants a clean house and when
you meet her, she HAS a clean house :-) the likilihood that SHE wants
a clean house is very high. Just because she will have a family in the
future does not mean she wants her house to be less clean. That being
the case, someone has to clean the house and if you aren't doing your
share, she simply may chose to share her life with someone who will.
rdu...@pdq.net
How can this extremely difficult problem ever be solved?? I know!
How about use a small part of your resources to HIRE A FUCKING MAID.
Then, spend your time away from work relaxing by the pool and enjoying
wanton sexual escapades.
Of course, enacting this plan would deprive the female of total
victim status. You would turn it down for this reason, of that we are
sure. The sweet nectar of helpless-female-victomhood is more precious
to you than any other substance on earth, real or imaginary.
But not all women have your sense of priorities. Shit, how hard is
it to clean a house anyway?
PolishKnight
"gingerbeer25" <ginger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
As the rebuttal and outrage expressed by many career women
readers showed, such "exploitation" is becoming easier for
such women to avoid. If they want all the bills along
with the housework they'd have to do anyway, that's quite
likely for many of them.
regards,
PolishKnight
Ken Chaddock
Laura has four sisters, two of them are *real* clean freaks...they
would literally rather stay home and clean their houses than go to a
movie or go out for dinner. Of the other two, one is an absolute slob
and you literally have to watch where you walk when you go into her
apartment and the other is pretty "normal"...as is Laura.
For some time Laura was getting quite a bit of crap about not keeping
the house up to the "standards" of the first two and she was feeling
quite bad about it...I found the perfect solution at one of the local
craft shops...they had a stone plaque with an engraved passage that said
"Our home, clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be happy"...we
point to it any time one of them says anything...
The bottom line is, Parg/Hyerdahl, (and I know this may be a difficult
concept for you, what with your issues with female entitlements and all)
if *YOU* want something, *YOU* should be willing to do what is necessary
to achieve it, it's NOT anyone else's "fair share" to work to achieve an
aim of *YOURS* and you should *NOT* expect anyone else to have to do so.
> Just because she will have a family in the future does not mean she wants
> her house to be less clean.
Note your Freudian slip..."her" house...well if she considers it *HER
HOUSE*, then, other than hiring someone, she is responsible for it...now
it it's "their" house, the implication is that *HE* should have a say in
the standards of cleanliness to which the house is maintained...if she
wants to keep it to a "higher" standard than he does...she can go for it
(by herself)...I'll bet he does *ALL* of the yard work and all of the
automobile maintenance and all of the home repairs and most of the
community volunteer work and...
> That being the case, someone has to clean the house and if you aren't
> doing your share,
It's not "your share" if it's *her* standard...which tends to work both
ways, when he spends three days cleaning the garage...she will likely be
conspicuous by her absence...
> she simply may chose to share her life with someone who will.
It's her prerogative to find a doormat wherever she can...
...Ken
Hyerdahl
:-) Again, in a partnership the funds of both partners are usually
used to pay the expenses. I'm ok with that.
> Of course, enacting this plan would deprive the female of total
> victim status. You would turn it down for this reason, of that we are
> sure. The sweet nectar of helpless-female-victomhood is more precious
> to you than any other substance on earth, real or imaginary.
> But not all women have your sense of priorities. Shit, how hard is
> it to clean a house anyway?
Again Ralph; women don't NEED lazy men in their lives. If you want to
find out how hard it is to clean a house, do it. If you don't care
about how she wants her life, it stands to reason that someday you
would divorce. It's just that clear. BTW, these things also work in
reverse. If the woman dosn't care about how the man feels...she is
likely to find herself on the short end of the divorce stick as well.
Hyerdahl
cheap to buy a coffee on the first date: $8.00. Women didn't want to
marry Mark because he was a nincompoop who would never own a house
$....200,000. to $600.00 and finally, women watched Mark go all the way
to Russia for love...PRICELESS.
> regards,
> PolishKnight
ls
Hyerdahl wrote:
> rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
> > gingerbeer25 wrote:
> > > ls wrote:
> > > > Here is the rebuttal to "Don't Marry Career Women".
> > > > It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
> > > > was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
> > > > defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
> > > > various studies mentioned in the man's article.
> > > >
> > > > I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
>
> Well, I thought the article was at least as well written as the
> original and that her points were valid.
Well, I thought it was poorly written. It's titled as a rebuttal but
it's not one at all. She flat out dismisses the studies and many
points he made by simply making nearly the whole article about herself
and her marriage, it's all about her. Noer's article sites studies and
statistics but she couldn't do the same. She lost the debate, by a
landslide.
In making her *rebuttal* primarily about her and her marriage she did
nothing more than to prove Noer right. It is all about her, the career
woman.
Chuck Hardin
> Well....let's see. Women didn't want to date Mark,
Foul! You have no business making this personal. Mark didn't mention
you in this discussion; have the good grace to return the favor.
In any case, you don't speak for all women. Don't try.
CCH
MCP
Hyerdahl
ls wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
> > > gingerbeer25 wrote:
> > > > ls wrote:
> > > > > Here is the rebuttal to "Don't Marry Career Women".
> > > > > It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
> > > > > was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
> > > > > defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
> > > > > various studies mentioned in the man's article.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
> >
> > Well, I thought the article was at least as well written as the
> > original and that her points were valid.
>
> Well, I thought it was poorly written. It's titled as a rebuttal but
> it's not one at all. She flat out dismisses the studies and many
> points he made by simply making nearly the whole article about herself
> and her marriage, it's all about her.
No; she made the article about the many, many women who do the unpaid
work at home and also work outside the home. She made the article
about men who wanted a slave instead of a wife.
:-) She turned the "studies" on their ear by showing that it is men
who don't wish to do the unpaid work, who are causing the problem. And
finally, she made it clear that women who want career and family, need
not marry such men.
Noer's article sites studies and statistics but she couldn't do the
same.
The studies showing divorces don't address the reasons FOR the
divorces. She put a spin on that that Noer wouldn't want to address
and has not.
She lost the debate, by a landslide.
And your proof for that is....?
> In making her *rebuttal* primarily about her and her marriage she did
> nothing more than to prove Noer right. It is all about her, the career
> woman.
>
She made her rebuttal based on every woman's marriage. Clearly, the
reason so many career women 'dump the chump' is because they are not
pulling their weight. They're lazy. It's just that simple.
PolishKnight
$8 for coffee?!?! :-) Even fru-fru French restaurants don't charge
that! :-)
Such an accusation is hollow since women don't want
to foot the bill either as much as, say, men saying women are lazy
for not doing the housework. That's the point: You love to portray
men as lazy for not doing their "share" of the housework while
looking the other way when women are mooches.
> Women didn't want to
> marry Mark because he was a nincompoop who would never own a house
> $....200,000.
You can't buy a house in Salinas for that but perhaps maybe in a
poor southern military town where you claim your niece lives.
> to $600.00
It's difficult for most middle class families to afford to buy a home
for
that much. The minimum payments for taxes and mortgage alone
are about $3,500.
Certainly, aging spinsters can do it alone if they like, but then
they'll
wind up working as both the provider AND the "unpaid work" of
a maid to boot.
> and finally, women watched Mark go all the way
> to Russia for love...PRICELESS.
Don't you mean allegedly going all the way to Russia for love? :-)
Which is it? Am I too cheap to foot the bill for coffee for
an "equal" relationship or too romantic by going all
the way to Russia for love?
One of the things I love about my wife is how romantic and
passionate she is and how she enjoys that trait in myself.
There's no shame in "trying too hard" to please valued people
and good manners are a natural part of that sentiment rather than
a mechanical relationship ritual.
regards,
PolishKnight
Hyerdahl
Well, I guess I wasn't considering the possibility that you'd have to
share one cup. :-) :-) :-)
> Such an accusation is hollow since women don't want
> to foot the bill either as much as, say, men saying women are lazy
> for not doing the housework.
I have no objection at all to women asking men out for dates, Mark. If
they had asked you, they'd pay the $8.00. :-)
That's the point: You love to portray> men as lazy for not doing their
"share" of the housework while> looking the other way when women are
mooches.
Well, you know my theory, here, and those of Miss Manners....that the
asker pays.
Of course, women are well known for asking men to dinner as well, but
usually not on a first date. I would not call such women "mooches",
would you? Your problem is that after the first date, you could never
wangle a second.
> > Women didn't want to
> > marry Mark because he was a nincompoop who would never own a house
> > $....200,000.
>
> You can't buy a house in Salinas for that but perhaps maybe in a
> poor southern military town where you claim your niece lives.
>
> > to $600.00
My neice doesn't live in the south, but where she lives you can buy a
house for $200,000.
>
> It's difficult for most middle class families to afford to buy a home
> for> that much. The minimum payments for taxes and mortgage alone
> are about $3,500.
>
> Certainly, aging spinsters can do it alone if they like, but then
> they'll wind up working as both the provider AND the "unpaid work" of
> a maid to boot.
>
Well, even if that were so, perhaps they'd prefer such to being married
to the likes of you, Mark. :-)
> > and finally, women watched Mark go all the way
> > to Russia for love...PRICELESS.
>
> Don't you mean allegedly going all the way to Russia for love? :-)
No....I believe you went there....and several times. I just think your
wife is alleged.
>
> Which is it? Am I too cheap to foot the bill for coffee for
> an "equal" relationship or too romantic by going all
> the way to Russia for love?
Buying a bride in Russia is anything but "romantic", Mark. In fact, it
reminds me a bit of those polygamous FLDS folks training their
daughters to suck their uncle's dicks. Not romantic at all.
> One of the things I love about my wife is how romantic and
> passionate she is and how she enjoys that trait in myself.
> There's no shame in "trying too hard" to please valued people
> and good manners are a natural part of that sentiment rather than
> a mechanical relationship ritual.
I think that good manners and romance serve couples well, Mark. You
won't get an argument from me there. That doesn't mean that I 'buy'
the notion that your alleged wife would be treated that way.
>
> regards,
> PolishKnight
PolishKnight
My share of the bill is irrelevent since I never indicated that I
would refuse to pay it. So we're strictly talking about her coffee
cost.
> > Such an accusation is hollow since women don't want
> > to foot the bill either as much as, say, men saying women are lazy
> > for not doing the housework.
>
> I have no objection at all to women asking men out for dates, Mark. If
> they had asked you, they'd pay the $8.00. :-)
Who says they didn't? :-)
Just as savvy feminine women of the past could cleverly steer
a conversation towards getting a man to suggest that they
go out together, whose to say I couldn't do the same with women?
The technicality of "who asked out whom" can easily be reversed
when two people are talking about different things they like
doing.
Even so, polite people don't play games to stick the dinner
check on someone else.
> That's the point: You love to portray> men as lazy for not doing their
> "share" of the housework while> looking the other way when women are
> mooches.
>
> Well, you know my theory, here, and those of Miss Manners....that the
> asker pays.
Miss Manners has been asked other etiquette questions including
whether someone whose invited to a wedding knowing that the
person cannot attend should be obligated to provide a gift
by mail (apparently, brides are trying to milk their older relatives
in this manner). She said no because of the intent of the
invitation.
But anyways, since I had carefully arranged so that even the cheap
ploy of asker pay couldn't be used (and even could be used
to my benefit) this doesn't apply.
If anything, they should have offered to pay since it was "their"
idea to go out to a restaurant.
> Of course, women are well known for asking men to dinner as well, but
> usually not on a first date. I would not call such women "mooches",
> would you?
Most men have also washed a dish or two during their lives so
by that definition, your mother didn't do all the unpaid work
in her marriage... :-)
You and I both know that someone who refuses to pick up the tab
for the first date is basically just looking to date for free.
> Your problem is that after the first date, you could never
> wangle a second.
When I paid, regardless of who asked, there was no problem.
Sexism is alive and well.
> > > Women didn't want to
> > > marry Mark because he was a nincompoop who would never own a house
> > > $....200,000.
> >
> > You can't buy a house in Salinas for that but perhaps maybe in a
> > poor southern military town where you claim your niece lives.
> >
> > > to $600.00
>
>
> My neice doesn't live in the south, but where she lives you can buy a
> house for $200,000.
>
> >
> > It's difficult for most middle class families to afford to buy a home
> > for> that much. The minimum payments for taxes and mortgage alone
> > are about $3,500.
> >
> > Certainly, aging spinsters can do it alone if they like, but then
> > they'll wind up working as both the provider AND the "unpaid work" of
> > a maid to boot.
> >
> Well, even if that were so, perhaps they'd prefer such to being married
> to the likes of you, Mark. :-)
As I've observed before, I'm not quite so bad really. If women
can't handle even a TV watching husband with his dirty socks,
she's not going to enjoy having children as an unwed mother
and changing diapers.
I would guess that's partly why blue staters are dying out:
Kids are such a drag to the sex and the city party lifestyle.
> > > and finally, women watched Mark go all the way
> > > to Russia for love...PRICELESS.
> >
> > Don't you mean allegedly going all the way to Russia for love? :-)
>
> No....I believe you went there....and several times. I just think your
> wife is alleged.
I know that you know that my wife is real because other people
who hardly agree with me on many things also know of her.
> > Which is it? Am I too cheap to foot the bill for coffee for
> > an "equal" relationship or too romantic by going all
> > the way to Russia for love?
>
> Buying a bride in Russia is anything but "romantic", Mark. In fact, it
> reminds me a bit of those polygamous FLDS folks training their
> daughters to suck their uncle's dicks. Not romantic at all.
It's apparently romantic to most women to buy their companionship
with dinner. As Groucho put it: We already know what they are,
it's just a matter of price.
> > One of the things I love about my wife is how romantic and
> > passionate she is and how she enjoys that trait in myself.
> > There's no shame in "trying too hard" to please valued people
> > and good manners are a natural part of that sentiment rather than
> > a mechanical relationship ritual.
>
> I think that good manners and romance serve couples well, Mark. You
> won't get an argument from me there.
You'd have to have a partner to have credibility to talk about
what makes a relationship work.
Indeed, this explains why the children of unwed mothers tend to
be socioeconomically disadvantaged: their mother didn't
have the social skills to get along with adults and often even
to support themselves so they aren't in a good position to
instill such values in children.
> That doesn't mean that I 'buy'
> the notion that your alleged wife would be treated that way.
I don't think any of us believe you're in a position to 'buy' much
of anything. :-)
regards,
PolishKnight
Heidi Graw
><rdu...@pdq.net> wrote in message
>news:1157410704.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip)
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>> Here's the 'rub', tho, Ralph. If a woman wants a clean house and when
>> you meet her, she HAS a clean house :-) the likilihood that SHE wants
>> a clean house is very high. Just because she will have a family in the
>> future does not mean she wants her house to be less clean. That being
>> the case, someone has to clean the house and if you aren't doing your
>> share, she simply may chose to share her life with someone who will.
> rdubose wrote:
> How can this extremely difficult problem ever be solved?? I know!
> How about use a small part of your resources to HIRE A FUCKING MAID.
Exactly, especially if both husband and wife are earning half-decent money,
which in most cases they are. As for those other small chores like cooking
dinner and stacking the dishes into the dishwasher and/or throwing dirty
laundry into the washing machine, if hubby just chooses to sit in front of
the TV instead of helping out, I would suggest the wife sit right next to
him whenever he's sitting down. If he asks what's for dinner, while he's
sitting around on his ass, she should just say, "It's in the fridge...help
yourself!" And if he complains he's got no clean laundry, the wife should
just shrug her shoulders and point to the laundry machine..."If you want
clean clothes, the machine's over there!" There is absolutely no reason to
be arguing about housework and who does more or less. If both hubby and
wife are both working full-time outside the house, he could be cooking
dinner, while she's out there changing the oil in the car. ;-)
I have a former sister-in-law who used to gripe about her husband's
laziness. She'd be busy folding laundry while he was outside giving her car
a tune-up! Sheez!
> Then, spend your time away from work relaxing by the pool and enjoying
> wanton sexual escapades.
> Of course, enacting this plan would deprive the female of total
> victim status.
Yes, heard the bitching and griping, and found that it was completely and
utterly unwarranted. Needless to say, sis-in-law wasn't too happy when I
pointed out all the things her hubby was busy doing outside, while she was
"toiling" around throwing dirty laundry into the machine. She also had a
cleaning lady who'd come in once a week to give the house a thorough
scrubbing.
>You would turn it down for this reason, of that we are
> sure. The sweet nectar of helpless-female-victomhood is more precious
> to you than any other substance on earth, real or imaginary.
> But not all women have your sense of priorities. Shit, how hard is
> it to clean a house anyway?
It's not that hard. I just find it extremely boring. I *hate* doing
housework! However, I do it because I happen to like a clean and orderly
house. I do it more for myself than for anyone else. In the meantime,
hubby is the one who takes care of the yard, the vehicles and whatever
maintance stuff that needs to be done. I don't ask him to help out with
housework because he already does all sorts of other stuff which is of
*mutual* benefit. He also likes a tidy house. So, between the two of us,
we feel were doing o.k...we don't argue about who does more or less. We
just do what needs to be done.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1157407926....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip)
>Hyerdahl wrote:
> That being
> the case, someone has to clean the house and if you aren't doing your
> share, she simply may chose to share her life with someone who will.
For the time it takes hubby to check the fluids in the car, the oil, water
and transmissions fluid and tops these up, and checks the tire pressure,
I've already scrubbed up the bathroom. So, what is there to argue about
when it comes to who does more or less of the unpaid work?
What I don't like about these housework studies is that they do not include
the yard, car and home maintenance work. And more often than not, I see men
doing these things. I would prefer to read more balanced and fair studies
when it comes to doing unpaid work in and around the *whole* home..yard and
vehicles included....just not the indoor stuff.
So, if hubby is mowing the lawn, the wife may be vacuum cleaning. And as
far as housework studies go, this lawnmowing is *not* factored in. It makes
the man look like he's not doing his fair share...and this is simply not
true!
Heidi
Hyerdahl
Mark, if YOU invited HER....the total cost is yours.
> > > Such an accusation is hollow since women don't want
> > > to foot the bill either as much as, say, men saying women are lazy
> > > for not doing the housework.
> >
> > I have no objection at all to women asking men out for dates, Mark. If
> > they had asked you, they'd pay the $8.00. :-)
>
> Who says they didn't? :-)
>
I do. :-)
> Just as savvy feminine women of the past could cleverly steer
> a conversation towards getting a man to suggest that they
> go out together, whose to say I couldn't do the same with women?
Yes, but how many women would want to pick up on it? :-) I bet, in
your case, those women were really dense. :-)
>
> The technicality of "who asked out whom" can easily be reversed
> when two people are talking about different things they like
> doing.
Again, you probably ran into only women who couldn't take the hint.
>
> Even so, polite people don't play games to stick the dinner
> check on someone else.
Moral people don't do that, Mark, but probably polite people do it all
the time. After all, those who ask people out are expected to pay.
>
> > That's the point: You love to portray> men as lazy for not doing their
> > "share" of the housework while> looking the other way when women are
> > mooches.
> >
> > Well, you know my theory, here, and those of Miss Manners....that the
> > asker pays.
>
> Miss Manners has been asked other etiquette questions including
> whether someone whose invited to a wedding knowing that the
> person cannot attend should be obligated to provide a gift
> by mail (apparently, brides are trying to milk their older relatives
> in this manner). She said no because of the intent of the
> invitation.
Trying to denounce brides for sending invitations won't cut it here,
Mark, since invitations often double a service, as announcements of
weddings. And, Miss Manners is correct, that a wedding invitation,
being also an announcement does not mean a gift must be purchased. Of
course, a wedding invitation is not the same as an invitation to
coffee.
>
>(edit)
>
> > Of course, women are well known for asking men to dinner as well, but
> > usually not on a first date. I would not call such women "mooches",
> > would you? The problem for Mark is that he never got second dates. :-)
>
> Most men have also washed a dish or two during their lives so
> by that definition, your mother didn't do all the unpaid work
> in her marriage... :-)
Sure she did, Mark. Even my father said so. Once my father was
retired he helped a little bit, but until then, my mother held a full
time job, and did all the housework. This observation lead me to be
very careful in the choices I made. :-)
>
> You and I both know that someone who refuses to pick up the tab
> for the first date is basically just looking to date for free.
>
> > Your problem is that after the first date, you could never
> > wangle a second.
>
> When I paid, regardless of who asked, there was no problem.
> Sexism is alive and well.
I noticed you didn't attempt to refute my observation. Interesting.
>
> > > > Women didn't want to
> > > > marry Mark because he was a nincompoop who would never own a house
> > > > $....200,000.
> > >
> > > You can't buy a house in Salinas for that but perhaps maybe in a
> > > poor southern military town where you claim your niece lives.
> > >
> > > > to $600.00
> >
> >
> > My neice doesn't live in the south, but where she lives you can buy a
> > house for $200,000. Also, I don't live in Salinas. But it serves me just as well for you to believe that I do. :-)
> >
> > >
> > > It's difficult for most middle class families to afford to buy a home
> > > for> that much. The minimum payments for taxes and mortgage alone
> > > are about $3,500.
> > >
> > > Certainly, aging spinsters can do it alone if they like, but then
> > > they'll wind up working as both the provider AND the "unpaid work" of
> > > a maid to boot.
> > >
> > Well, even if that were so, perhaps they'd prefer such to being married
> > to the likes of you, Mark. :-)
>
> As I've observed before, I'm not quite so bad really. If women
> can't handle even a TV watching husband with his dirty socks,
> she's not going to enjoy having children as an unwed mother
> and changing diapers.
There's a big difference between something you want, like children and
something you don't want like a husband who IS a child. :-)
> I would guess that's partly why blue staters are dying out:
> Kids are such a drag to the sex and the city party lifestyle.
>
> > > > and finally, women watched Mark go all the way
> > > > to Russia for love...PRICELESS.
> > >
> > > Don't you mean allegedly going all the way to Russia for love? :-)
> >
> > No....I believe you went there....and several times. I just think your
> > wife is alleged.
>
> I know that you know that my wife is real because other people
> who hardly agree with me on many things also know of her.
Huh? Now I am confused. Why would I tend to believe people who
allegedly "know of her" and who don't "agree with" you? Do you think
that people who "hardly" agree with you are somehow more ....believable
than you? :-)
> > > Which is it? Am I too cheap to foot the bill for coffee for
> > > an "equal" relationship or too romantic by going all
> > > the way to Russia for love?
> >
> > Buying a bride in Russia is anything but "romantic", Mark. In fact, it
> > reminds me a bit of those polygamous FLDS folks training their
> > daughters to suck their uncle's dicks. Not romantic at all.
>
> It's apparently romantic to most women to buy their companionship
> with dinner. As Groucho put it: We already know what they are,
> it's just a matter of price.
Again, most normal people don't find dating the same as prostitution,
no matter who pays for dinner and no matter how the woman responds
after dinner. :-) Jesus, friends of mine (a married couple) paid for
my dinner this past weekend, and now you have me wondering if I owe
them sex. :-) Just kidding.
>
> > > One of the things I love about my wife is how romantic and
> > > passionate she is and how she enjoys that trait in myself.
> > > There's no shame in "trying too hard" to please valued people
> > > and good manners are a natural part of that sentiment rather than
> > > a mechanical relationship ritual.
> >
> > I think that good manners and romance serve couples well, Mark. You
> > won't get an argument from me there.
>
> You'd have to have a partner to have credibility to talk about
> what makes a relationship work.
Not really. But I'd certainly either need to have an actual loving
relationship at some point in my life, or have done a lot of research
on one. :-) Nice fishing trip tho.
>
> Indeed, this explains why the children of unwed mothers tend to
> be socioeconomically disadvantaged: their mother didn't
> have the social skills to get along with adults and often even
> to support themselves so they aren't in a good position to
> instill such values in children.
I think that many, many poor and uneducated people lack social skills
whether they are mothers or not, Mark. Obviously, the more education a
mother has, the more she will have to pass onto her
children....INCLUDING, but not limited to social skills. And,
society tends to blame abandoning dads more for the poverty concerns of
single moms.
> > That doesn't mean that I 'buy'> > the notion that your alleged wife would be treated that way.
>
> I don't think any of us believe you're in a position to 'buy' much
> of anything. :-)
Pure speculation on your part, Mark. There's no there there.
>
> regards,
> PolishKnight
Hyerdahl
I see the humor in this, but quite honestly, once children arrive into
the picture, it won't work. :-) Children have to eat and have clean
laundry. :-) However, that's when women sometimes simply look for a
real partner, someone who will do his fair share.
> I have a former sister-in-law who used to gripe about her husband's
> laziness. She'd be busy folding laundry while he was outside giving her car
> a tune-up! Sheez!
Well, my car needs a tune up once every.....??????? How often does
the laundry need to be done? :-)
> > Then, spend your time away from work relaxing by the pool and enjoying
> > wanton sexual escapades.
Indeed. La Vids e Bella!
> > Of course, enacting this plan would deprive the female of total victim status.
Not really; just a sexy broad with a bikini. :-)
>
> Yes, heard the bitching and griping, and found that it was completely and
> utterly unwarranted. Needless to say, sis-in-law wasn't too happy when I
> pointed out all the things her hubby was busy doing outside, while she was
> "toiling" around throwing dirty laundry into the machine. She also had a
> cleaning lady who'd come in once a week to give the house a thorough
> scrubbing.
Lucky gal. In any event, you only tune up a car once in a blue moon,
while laundry is ongoing.
Hyerdahl
Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:1157407926....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >Hyerdahl wrote:
> > That being
> > the case, someone has to clean the house and if you aren't doing your
> > share, she simply may chose to share her life with someone who will.
>
> For the time it takes hubby to check the fluids in the car, the oil, water
> and transmissions fluid and tops these up, and checks the tire pressure,
> I've already scrubbed up the bathroom. So, what is there to argue about
> when it comes to who does more or less of the unpaid work?
Again, the car doesn't take as much care as housework, especially when
kids are involved. But it may be that his work outside or around the
house takes as much time as yours, inside, and perhaps that is what is
agreeable to both of you.
> What I don't like about these housework studies is that they do not include
> the yard, car and home maintenance work. And more often than not, I see men
> doing these things. I would prefer to read more balanced and fair studies
> when it comes to doing unpaid work in and around the *whole* home..yard and
> vehicles included....just not the indoor stuff.
The real problem with what you suggest is that some of the things men
do outside the house are not things done on a regular basis. For
example, my father used to take down our storm windows in the late
spring, and put them up again in the late fall. It was a seasonal
task. To take the windows down took about an hour. To put them back
up took about 3 hours. I could compare this kind of task with my
mother's canning fruits and jams.
The regular housework is ongoing, boring and never ending.
> So, if hubby is mowing the lawn, the wife may be vacuum cleaning.
Sure, but I vacuum my carpets every other day. Mowing the lawn I only
have to do once every 2.5 weeks in the summer, and once a mo. in the
spring, winter and fall. So the two are not really comparable.
And as far as housework studies go, this lawnmowing is *not* factored
in. It makes
> the man look like he's not doing his fair share...and this is simply not
> true!
>
Again, the things you have to compare are things either done on a
regular basis like cooking, cleaning, laundry as compared to ??????
And then, you can compare things on an irregular basis like lawn
mowing.
> Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> I have a former sister-in-law who used to gripe about her husband's
>> laziness. She'd be busy folding laundry while he was outside giving her
>> car
>> a tune-up! Sheez!
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> Well, my car needs a tune up once every.....??????? How often does
> the laundry need to be done? :-)
It's not just tune-ups for the car, though...rototilling the garden,
cleaning the eaves troughs, fixing leaks, pruning the trees, fixing the
fence, painting the house, power-washing the patio, recaulking the windows,
fixing the appliances, and the list goes on and on...general home
maintenance, not just cleaning.
So, if the husband complains there's a leak in the roof, I suppose he can
always demand his career wife ought to climb up on the ladder and fix it,
while he's babysitting the kids...playing games with them out in the yard.
;-)
And as I said earlier, if hubby chooses to just sit down to take a breather,
the wife should simply just join him. Sit down when *he* does! And if the
kids run amok, let *him* deal with it! When they get on his nerves, he's
bound to do something about it. ;-)
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> What I don't like about these housework studies is that they do not
>> include
>> the yard, car and home maintenance work. And more often than not, I see
>> men
>> doing these things. I would prefer to read more balanced and fair
>> studies
>> when it comes to doing unpaid work in and around the *whole* home..yard
>> and
>> vehicles included....just not the indoor stuff.
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> The real problem with what you suggest is that some of the things men
> do outside the house are not things done on a regular basis. For
> example, my father used to take down our storm windows in the late
> spring, and put them up again in the late fall. It was a seasonal
> task.
Exactly. However, there are 4 seasons! Year-round there is stuff to do
around the house...the *whole* house..inside and outside.
>To take the windows down took about an hour. To put them back
> up took about 3 hours. I could compare this kind of task with my
> mother's canning fruits and jams.
> The regular housework is ongoing, boring and never ending.
At issue is *unpaid work*...the focus of the studies however, only focus on
*inside the home and child rearing.* There is all sorts of unpaid work men
do...they could be doing this in the yard, in the garage and even out in the
community. For example, once a week while I'm sitting around watching TV
for one hour, my husband is out in the community doing unpaid volunteer work
for one and a half hours. This is work that is benefitting not only his own
kid, but other kids, too. Yet, this sort of unpaid work he's doing is not
counted!
As for sister-in-law, while she was out for drinks with her girlfriends, and
the kids were offloaded to a babysitter, the husband was busy as a
*volunteer* fire-fighter on top of his regular paid work. Yet, *she*
considered him lazy! So, while she was enjoying fun and entertainment, her
husband was out there saving lives, fighting fires, putting his own life at
risk.
Unpaid work does not just happen *inside* the home, it happens elsewhere,
too...and often that outside unpaid work helps children...not only one's
own, but other people's too. Yet this sort of work is not counted and
acknowledged...and I think it should!
Heidi
ls
Hyerdahl wrote:
> ls wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
> > > > gingerbeer25 wrote:
> > > > > ls wrote:
> > > > > > Here is the rebuttal to "Don't Marry Career Women".
> > > > > > It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
> > > > > > was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
> > > > > > defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
> > > > > > various studies mentioned in the man's article.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
> > >
> > > Well, I thought the article was at least as well written as the
> > > original and that her points were valid.
> >
> > Well, I thought it was poorly written. It's titled as a rebuttal but
> > it's not one at all. She flat out dismisses the studies and many
> > points he made by simply making nearly the whole article about herself
> > and her marriage, it's all about her.
>
> No; she made the article about the many, many women who do the unpaid
> work at home and also work outside the home. She made the article
> about men who wanted a slave instead of a wife.
> :-) She turned the "studies" on their ear by showing that it is men
No, she simply choose to dismiss them.
> who don't wish to do the unpaid work, who are causing the problem. And
> finally, she made it clear that women who want career and family, need
> not marry such men.
So, Noer made it much more clear that men need not marry such women.
And he has the stats to back up his opinion.
>
> Noer's article sites studies and statistics but she couldn't do the
> same.
>
> The studies showing divorces don't address the reasons FOR the
> divorces. She put a spin on that that Noer wouldn't want to address
> and has not.
As the *reason* for many divorces is "irreconcilable differences", how
exactly do you or Corcoran know any of the reasons?
As no one knows the exact reasons the studies and statistics are the
only facts to go by.
>
>
> She lost the debate, by a landslide.
>
> And your proof for that is....?
That she didn't refute ANY of the studies noted. She gave her own
personal experience. That won't win any debate.
>
> > In making her *rebuttal* primarily about her and her marriage she did
> > nothing more than to prove Noer right. It is all about her, the career
> > woman.
> >
> She made her rebuttal based on every woman's marriage.
No, she sited no studies or statistics. She didnt' base it on my
marriage, she based it on her own marriage.
> Clearly, the
> reason so many career women 'dump the chump' is because they are not
> pulling their weight. They're lazy. It's just that simple.
No, it's not so simple.
If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be
unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy
if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006).
How is the man a chump in these situations?
Hyerdahl
Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:1157489356....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> I have a former sister-in-law who used to gripe about her husband's
> >> laziness. She'd be busy folding laundry while he was outside giving her
> >> car
> >> a tune-up! Sheez!
>
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Well, my car needs a tune up once every.....??????? How often does
> > the laundry need to be done? :-)
>
> It's not just tune-ups for the car, though...rototilling the garden,
> cleaning the eaves troughs, fixing leaks, pruning the trees, fixing the
> fence, painting the house, power-washing the patio, recaulking the windows,
> fixing the appliances, and the list goes on and on...general home
> maintenance, not just cleaning.
Well, in my home the cooking, cleaning and laundry, need to be done on
a regular basis, and my mate and I both do those other chores when they
need to be done.
> So, if the husband complains there's a leak in the roof, I suppose he can
> always demand his career wife ought to climb up on the ladder and fix it,
> while he's babysitting the kids...playing games with them out in the yard.
> ;-)
Again, fixing a hole in the roof is just a one-shot deal, Heidi. And
sometimes it takes more than one person to fix it. At my house we both
fix things, or hire it done.
>
> And as I said earlier, if hubby chooses to just sit down to take a breather,
> the wife should simply just join him. Sit down when *he* does! And if the
> kids run amok, let *him* deal with it! When they get on his nerves, he's
> bound to do something about it. ;-)
>
I agree with that. Where we may not agree is where work is balanced.
And lots and lots of women complain that their husbands don't share the
repetitive work. My youngest sister has a deal with her husband, that
he does all the driving and she does all the housework. You can take
THAT deal and shove it. :-)
> Heidi
Hyerdahl
ls wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > ls wrote:
> > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
> > > > > gingerbeer25 wrote:
> > > > > > ls wrote:
> > > > > > > Here is the rebuttal to "Don't Marry Career Women".
> > > > > > > It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
> > > > > > > was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
> > > > > > > defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
> > > > > > > various studies mentioned in the man's article.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I thought the article was at least as well written as the
> > > > original and that her points were valid.
> > >
> > > Well, I thought it was poorly written. It's titled as a rebuttal but
> > > it's not one at all. She flat out dismisses the studies and many
> > > points he made by simply making nearly the whole article about herself
> > > and her marriage, it's all about her.
> >
> > No; she made the article about the many, many women who do the unpaid
> > work at home and also work outside the home. She made the article
> > about men who wanted a slave instead of a wife.
> > :-) She turned the "studies" on their ear by showing that it is men
>
> No, she simply choose to dismiss them.
They didn't have any clout regarding the laziness of men, so they were
not important to her points.
>
> > who don't wish to do the unpaid work, who are causing the problem. And
> > finally, she made it clear that women who want career and family, need
> > not marry such men.
>
> So, Noer made it much more clear that men need not marry such women.
> And he has the stats to back up his opinion.
>
Again, the stats he uses are based on his assumptions that men are not
lazy. :-) So her article was not about his statistics at all. His
stats on divorce never discuss the laziness of the men involved.
> >
> > Noer's article sites studies and statistics but she couldn't do the
> > same.
She doesn't need statistics to make the statement that women need not
marry lazy men, or stay with them. :-) In that regard, the stats he
offered supported HER thesis, that women do divorce lazy men.
> > The studies showing divorces don't address the reasons FOR the
> > divorces. She put a spin on that that Noer wouldn't want to address
> > and has not.
>
> As the *reason* for many divorces is "irreconcilable differences", how
> exactly do you or Corcoran know any of the reasons?
> As no one knows the exact reasons the studies and statistics are the
> only facts to go by.
>
Again, two of the current reasons women give for divorcing their
husbands are his unwillingness to take on more of the unpaid work at
home, and computer sex. :-)
Women are certainly free to divorce based on those two issues.
>
> >
> > She lost the debate, by a landslide.
> >
> > And your proof for that is....?
>
> That she didn't refute ANY of the studies noted. She gave her own
> personal experience. That won't win any debate.
Her thesis, that men are too lazy to do the unpaid work at home, have
been supported by countless surveys. She didn't need his to
substantiate.
>
>
> >
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> And as I said earlier, if hubby chooses to just sit down to take a
>> breather,
>> the wife should simply just join him. Sit down when *he* does! And if
>> the
>> kids run amok, let *him* deal with it! When they get on his nerves, he's
>> bound to do something about it. ;-)
>>
>Hyerdahl wrote:
> I agree with that. Where we may not agree is where work is balanced.
> And lots and lots of women complain that their husbands don't share the
> repetitive work.
So, it's not so much who does more of the unpaid work, but rather who does
more of the boring and repetive work. So, while both may be busy doing
unpaid work, one spouse is seen doing more of the interesting unpaid work,
while the other is doing more of the boring stuff that needs to be done.
>My youngest sister has a deal with her husband, that
> he does all the driving and she does all the housework. You can take
> THAT deal and shove it. :-)
<chuckle> So, your sister doesn't like driving and her husband doesn't like
housework. If approximately the same numbers of hours are involved, it
would appear a fair deal, though, wouldn't it? They're both avoiding
something they don't like to do! ;-)
Well, in any case, as was with my sister-in-law...she chose to divorce her
husband because she thought him lazy. "He never does anything!" However,
while scrutinizing just what it was both were busy with and what was unpaid
work, the claim she made was patently false. Her husband was far from lazy.
What he did do though was all the chores that needed doing, but *he* was
enjoying them. And seeing her husband involved in activities that made him
happy irked her to no end! The man also did cooking and laundry when his
wife was working overtime, which she did on a fairly regular basis...and
he'd cook proper nutritious meals, too.
As far as I could tell, she divorced him because *she was unhappy with
herself.* He had absolutely nothing to do with it. No matter how much he
did and how much he contributed to the household and involved himself with
the children, it was never good enough. The best thing she did was to
remove her miserable self from his presence. She freed him from her
criticisms, her lousy temperament and her own dissatisfaction. He went on
his own merry way and the kids, teenagers at that time, followed him. Last
I heard she is still moaning and groaning about everything while he is
rather quite happy and content. She tried sucking up to him about 5 years
after the divorce. He refused! Smart man! LOL... ;-)
Heidi
rdu...@pdq.net
What surveys say is that women claim that men are doing less than
what they would like. But there is easy proof that it is not men that
are demanding that this sort of "work" get done in the first place.
First, single men do not seem to care. They do not do "housework"
either. Second, if guys were insisting that their hard working career
wife do certain home-chores - who doubts that she would not say,"If you
want spagetti, there is the kitchen." Of course she would say that and
it would end the matter. But she does not say that sort of thing
because she knows that he does not care if it is spagetti or day old
pizza. Only she cares. If he really cared, he would order for it. It is
not hard to figure out that the wife is tired from work.
But there is a worse problem. When a wife gets a promotion she is
likely to see her husband as suddenly less desireable. Rather than
admit that, it is so much more PC to complain that he does not do
enough housework. She does not want to say that she would not want him
around even if he did all of the housework She only wants to fuck her
boss now, not the schlub she lives with.
When I hear female Medical students/Law students say that they
want a guy who will help with the dishes, etc. I suspect that a lot of
bullshit is being expressed. In some cases, they might want to marry a
part-time working beta guy who can make her life easier at home but she
basically will never want to have sex with that type guy - at least not
more than is necessary to get him married to her.
Try to find a single example of female/romance stories where the
heroine is all hot and bothered for Mr. Milquetoast Househusband. In
the greater scheme of things, in the female brain, such guys are good
for helping to raise other mens seed -and helping with the dishes
perhaps.
If your are a guy, the lesson is clear: Never help with the dishes.
If she wants to have sex with you she will regardless. If she sees you
as a convenient loser why bother?
Hyerdahl
Heidi Graw wrote:
> (snip)
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> And as I said earlier, if hubby chooses to just sit down to take a
> >> breather,> >> the wife should simply just join him. Sit down when *he* does! And if
> >> the> >> kids run amok, let *him* deal with it! When they get on his nerves, he's
> >> bound to do something about it. ;-)
> >>
>
> >Hyerdahl wrote:
> > I agree with that. Where we may not agree is where work is balanced.
> > And lots and lots of women complain that their husbands don't share the
> > repetitive work.
>
> So, it's not so much who does more of the unpaid work, but rather who does
> more of the boring and repetive work. So, while both may be busy doing
> unpaid work, one spouse is seen doing more of the interesting unpaid work,
> while the other is doing more of the boring stuff that needs to be done.
Well, it is who does the unpaid work as well. I think your suggestion
that men do as much unpaid work as women, is simply innacurate, and
there are, as you suggest, lots of studies showing that women don't
believe men are doing their share.
>
> >My youngest sister has a deal with her husband, that> > he does all the driving and she does all the housework. You can take> > THAT deal and shove it. :-)
>
> <chuckle> So, your sister doesn't like driving and her husband doesn't like
> housework. If approximately the same numbers of hours are involved, it
> would appear a fair deal, though, wouldn't it? They're both avoiding
> something they don't like to do! ;-)
It's bum deal. My sister works outside the home and she has to drive
in her work. So no...I don't buy that deal. The only time they drive
together is for pleasure, really.
>
> Well, in any case, as was with my sister-in-law...she chose to divorce her
> husband because she thought him lazy. "He never does anything!" However,
> while scrutinizing just what it was both were busy with and what was unpaid
> work, the claim she made was patently false. Her husband was far from lazy.
> What he did do though was all the chores that needed doing, but *he* was
> enjoying them. And seeing her husband involved in activities that made him
> happy irked her to no end! The man also did cooking and laundry when his
> wife was working overtime, which she did on a fairly regular basis...and
> he'd cook proper nutritious meals, too.
Well, if all the chores one partner does are enjoyable and all the
chores the other partner does are not, perhaps some kind of trade is in
order. OTOH, perhaps there's nothing your sister in law enjoys. In
that case, HE made a bum deal. :-)
> (edit)
>
> Heidi
Hyerdahl
rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > ls wrote:
> > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > ls wrote:
> > > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > > > rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
> > > > > > > gingerbeer25 wrote:
> > > > > > > > ls wrote:
> > Her thesis, that men are too lazy to do the unpaid work at home, have
> > been supported by countless surveys.
>
What surveys say is that women claim that men are doing less than
> what they would like. But there is easy proof that it is not men that
> are demanding that this sort of "work" get done in the first place.
That isn't the issue, Ralph. If either partner is dissatisfied with
how the house is being cleaned or maintained, it is up to both of them
to make sure standards are met.
> First, single men do not seem to care. They do not do "housework"
> either.
I assure you the standards society places on housewives, is much
different than the ones placed on single men. I have a married friend
who told me when she met her husband, she found a three week old
macaroni and cheese in his cabinet. :-) How cute would that have
been, do you suppose, in the home of ....say....a minister's wife? And
who would be blamed?
Second, if guys were insisting that their hard working career
> wife do certain home-chores - who doubts that she would not say,"If you
> want spagetti, there is the kitchen."
It's not a matter of "guys insisting"; it's a matter of what kind of
cleanliness society expects and who gets blamed if standards are not
met. I know many, many career women who hire someone to come in once a
week.
Of course she would say that and> it would end the matter. But she
does not say that sort of thing> because she knows that he does not
care if it is spagetti or day old
> pizza. Only she cares. If he really cared, he would order for it. It is
> not hard to figure out that the wife is tired from work.
It has been my experience that once a man has sampled a home with good
ambiance and feng sui and amazing food, prepared with love and talent,
that he's very hesitant, shall we say, to return to .....SPAM. :-)
> But there is a worse problem. When a wife gets a promotion she is
> likely to see her husband as suddenly less desireable. Rather than
> admit that, it is so much more PC to complain that he does not do
> enough housework. She does not want to say that she would not want him
> around even if he did all of the housework She only wants to fuck her
> boss now, not the schlub she lives with.
Now it seems you're ascribing to women the same kinds of things women
used to ascribe to men. :-) So welcome to equality. :-)
> When I hear female Medical students/Law students say that they
> want a guy who will help with the dishes, etc. I suspect that a lot of
> bullshit is being expressed. In some cases, they might want to marry a
> part-time working beta guy who can make her life easier at home but she
> basically will never want to have sex with that type guy - at least not
> more than is necessary to get him married to her.
> Try to find a single example of female/romance stories where the
> heroine is all hot and bothered for Mr. Milquetoast Househusband. In
> the greater scheme of things, in the female brain, such guys are good
> for helping to raise other mens seed -and helping with the dishes
> perhaps.
> If your are a guy, the lesson is clear: Never help with the dishes.
> If she wants to have sex with you she will regardless. If she sees you
> as a convenient loser why bother?
Well, that's if she doesn't leave you for the boss, who can afford a
housekeeper, eh?
Get real.
> > > >
> > > >
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
> Well, if all the chores one partner does are enjoyable and all the
> chores the other partner does are not, perhaps some kind of trade is in
> order. OTOH, perhaps there's nothing your sister in law enjoys. In
> that case, HE made a bum deal. :-)
Yes, indeed. Fortunately, he learned from his past mistake. It's quite
interesting, though...there is nothing that my brother-in-law would not do
for me if I were to ask him. But then, again, I'm not married to him. ;-)
I'm just glad I'm married to the man I do have. If I were to really feel
like not doing one of my more repetitive and boring jobs, he'd step in to
help out. For example: shampooing the carpets. I hate it so much that
when it comes time to doing it, I look at the machine, then I look at my
husband with my most "woe-is-me" expression that I can possibly muster up
to extract the maximum sympathy from him, and then I'll whine, "Will you do
this for me, PLEASE????" Then he'll cave in and do it. ;-) Then I'll say,
"Oh thank-you, thank-you, thank-you...You're a real sweetheart to do this
for me!" LOL... ;-) I only resort to this tactic very rarely. Of course
hubby knows what's behind it all. He'll mutter, "You sure know how to
sucker in a man!" So, we end up laughing about it. ;-)
Heidi
Avenger
manner you're accustomed to. And that she's home on time to cook and do the
housework and is available for sex if you desire it :o) Under these
conditions I see no reason to object to a female working.
catbr...@yahoo.com
>
> > ls wrote:
> > > Here is the rebuttal to "Don't Marry Career Women".
> > > It's poorly written, illogical and doesn't even address most of what
> > > was said in the man's article. The woman took it as a personal attack,
> > > defending herself and her marriage. She didn't even address the
> > > various studies mentioned in the man's article.
> > >
> > > I'm surprised Frobes published such crap.
> > >
> > >
> PolishKnight
I'm a career woman and I am not outraged in any way. In fact, I am
profoundly indifferent.
First of all, marriage is not for everyone. Marry if you like, or
don't, what's the issue?
A woman has as much to lose as a man does in marriage.
Career obsessed men are no better than career obsessed women at
marriage so the point of the original Forbes article is mute at best.
Secondly, the guy who has been posting this article all over usenet
probably couldn't get a wife if they were selling them at WalMart.
He's just another bitter loser throwing his dodo at women online.
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
Pussy Galore wrote:
> And girls, please remember than pussy is cheap and common. I should know ;)
> Why buy a donkey if you have a Ferrari.
If pussy is cheap - remember this, they're giving cock away! And
probably cock bigger and stiffer than yours.
Think about it.
Cat
Hyerdahl
Sure, and I think that's how most partnerships work. In fact, using
the skills you have within the partnership is really the best way to
make the business (or marriage) work.
I guess my point here is that many, many women seem very unsatisfied
within the marriage, if their partners are not doing their fair share.
In my home we both work at the pleasant and unpleasant tasks until they
are done, using the skills we each have. But if there's a particularly
difficult or nasty task to be done, we both pitch in.
>
> Heidi
Hyerdahl
Amen. :-)
>
> Cat
PolishKnight
> PolishKnight wrote:
[...]
> > My share of the bill is irrelevent since I never indicated that I
> > would refuse to pay it. So we're strictly talking about her coffee
> > cost.
>
> Mark, if YOU invited HER....the total cost is yours.
And I've already said I did not.
But even so, all you're doing is just dumping one sexist expectation
upon another much like a sexist pancake. If the woman decides
to enjoy the sexist expectation of the man paying on top of
him doing all the asking out, it's still sexist.
But to your credit, this dog is hunting (at least halfway).
I've heard a number of normal women in my age range use this
rationalization to imply that they weren't demanding men
pay their way even as they knew that the end effect was
virtually the same.
"Just remember Jerry! It's not a lie if YOU believe it!" --
George Castanza, Seinfeld
Men on the other hand generally didn't bother with this
rationalization when it came for paying for dates.
Many responded with typical sexism knowing that women
didn't mind sexism when it was in their favor, or they
would admit (privately) that they were too insecure
to not pay, or they had ulterior motives.
So in other words, while you say "men lie", the reality is that
women often lie to themselves both about their own
reasons for what they expect from men as well as what
motivates the men _from the beginning of the relationship_.
> > > > Such an accusation is hollow since women don't want
> > > > to foot the bill either as much as, say, men saying women are lazy
> > > > for not doing the housework.
> > >
> > > I have no objection at all to women asking men out for dates, Mark. If
> > > they had asked you, they'd pay the $8.00. :-)
> >
> > Who says they didn't? :-)
> >
> I do. :-)
So your shallow self-serving rationalization is exposed since
when you talk about women asking men out for dates, you don't
expect it to happen anyway.
> > Just as savvy feminine women of the past could cleverly steer
> > a conversation towards getting a man to suggest that they
> > go out together, whose to say I couldn't do the same with women?
>
> Yes, but how many women would want to pick up on it? :-) I bet, in
> your case, those women were really dense. :-)
Generally speaking, isn't someone dense if they actually
believe that game playing nonsense above, for real?
Hell, it sounds as if such women are ready to believe in a lot
of nonsense that men "lie" to them about. These women
might as well have "please tell me lies" written on their shirts.
The stage where discussing activities changes into someone
getting the asker albatross around their neck is quite
subtle really. I recall suggesting to one woman to
go to the beach. She then added that she would like to
go for coffee afterwards. I didn't _ask_ her to go
for that coffee. It was _her_ suggestion.
> > The technicality of "who asked out whom" can easily be reversed
> > when two people are talking about different things they like
> > doing.
>
> Again, you probably ran into only women who couldn't take the hint.
There are plenty of situations too where asker pays doesn't
apply. Personal ads for instance.
> > Even so, polite people don't play games to stick the dinner
> > check on someone else.
>
> Moral people don't do that, Mark, but probably polite people do it all
> the time. After all, those who ask people out are expected to pay.
I think now you're playing a semantics weasel game with morality
and politeness. Politeness is based upon behaviour that is
considerate of other people's feelings and interests and
this is related to morality but it not necessarily equivalent
since it's possible to hurt people's feelings but still be
moral.
Irregardless, if you imply that someone should choose at times
between manners and morals, I would say that morals probably
trumps manners. For example, being rude and bumping into people
to get to a child to save it's life.
> > > That's the point: You love to portray> men as lazy for not doing their
> > > "share" of the housework while> looking the other way when women are
> > > mooches.
> > >
> > > Well, you know my theory, here, and those of Miss Manners....that the
> > > asker pays.
> >
> > Miss Manners has been asked other etiquette questions including
> > whether someone whose invited to a wedding knowing that the
> > person cannot attend should be obligated to provide a gift
> > by mail (apparently, brides are trying to milk their older relatives
> > in this manner). She said no because of the intent of the
> > invitation.
>
> Trying to denounce brides for sending invitations won't cut it here,
> Mark, since invitations often double a service, as announcements of
> weddings. And, Miss Manners is correct, that a wedding invitation,
> being also an announcement does not mean a gift must be purchased.
Perhaps you read something I didn't. Miss Manners
does _not_ justify the older relative not sending the gift
due to that rationalization. She says simply that it's understood by
all parties that the relative will be unable to attend
and therefore will not have the same etiquette obligations
that a person who could conceivably attend would have.
> Of
> course, a wedding invitation is not the same as an invitation to
> coffee.
Agreed. But you've clearly shown that the invitation in this
case has been solicited through dishonest or non-reciprocal
means showing that it isn't a similar situation as generic
invitations.
> >(edit)
> >
> > > Of course, women are well known for asking men to dinner as well, but
> > > usually not on a first date. I would not call such women "mooches",
> > > would you? The problem for Mark is that he never got second dates. :-)
> >
> > Most men have also washed a dish or two during their lives so
> > by that definition, your mother didn't do all the unpaid work
> > in her marriage... :-)
>
> Sure she did, Mark. Even my father said so. Once my father was
> retired he helped a little bit, but until then, my mother held a full
> time job, and did all the housework. This observation lead me to be
> very careful in the choices I made. :-)
If he did work later as you just admitted, then she didn't
do _all_ the unpaid work. All it takes is a single dish...
> > You and I both know that someone who refuses to pick up the tab
> > for the first date is basically just looking to date for free.
> >
> > > Your problem is that after the first date, you could never
> > > wangle a second.
> >
> > When I paid, regardless of who asked, there was no problem.
> > Sexism is alive and well.
>
> I noticed you didn't attempt to refute my observation. Interesting.
I was saying it was quite easy to get second dates merely by
paying whether she formally asked or not (note that they didn't
mind me paying even if they technically were the asker :-)
Indeed, one would imagine that there is no expectation of the
man paying due to circumstances such as blind dates or
the woman deciding to go out to a restaurant that she would
offer to pay as you've argued above but that's not the case.
It's simply a cheap rationalization that the woman discards
when it doesn't suit her. That's poor manners _and_ morals.
> > > > > Women didn't want to
> > > > > marry Mark because he was a nincompoop who would never own a house
> > > > > $....200,000.
> > > >
> > > > You can't buy a house in Salinas for that but perhaps maybe in a
> > > > poor southern military town where you claim your niece lives.
> > > >
> > > > > to $600.00
> > >
> > >
> > > My neice doesn't live in the south, but where she lives you can buy a
> > > house for $200,000. Also, I don't live in Salinas. But it serves me just as well for you to believe that I do. :-)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's difficult for most middle class families to afford to buy a home
> > > > for> that much. The minimum payments for taxes and mortgage alone
> > > > are about $3,500.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly, aging spinsters can do it alone if they like, but then
> > > > they'll wind up working as both the provider AND the "unpaid work" of
> > > > a maid to boot.
> > > >
> > > Well, even if that were so, perhaps they'd prefer such to being married
> > > to the likes of you, Mark. :-)
> >
> > As I've observed before, I'm not quite so bad really. If women
> > can't handle even a TV watching husband with his dirty socks,
> > she's not going to enjoy having children as an unwed mother
> > and changing diapers.
>
> There's a big difference between something you want, like children and
> something you don't want like a husband who IS a child. :-)
Did your mother have to supervise him when he was alone?
Young children need to be legally supervised even if
the adult is merely present and just stops the children
from hurting themselves and others. Could he go to the bathroom
by himself? Could he get out food and serve himself
at least? I mean, surely he was able to eat while your
mother was at work.
If he couldn't, then he was disabled and it's shameful for
you to even imply that was lazy. Otherwise, he was not
as bad as a child.
> > I would guess that's partly why blue staters are dying out:
> > Kids are such a drag to the sex and the city party lifestyle.
> >
> > > > > and finally, women watched Mark go all the way
> > > > > to Russia for love...PRICELESS.
> > > >
> > > > Don't you mean allegedly going all the way to Russia for love? :-)
> > >
> > > No....I believe you went there....and several times. I just think your
> > > wife is alleged.
> >
> > I know that you know that my wife is real because other people
> > who hardly agree with me on many things also know of her.
>
> Huh? Now I am confused. Why would I tend to believe people who
> allegedly "know of her" and who don't "agree with" you? Do you think
> that people who "hardly" agree with you are somehow more ....believable
> than you? :-)
Not necessarily "more" believable than me but certainly people
who tend to disagree with me are not going to be motivated
to lie for my benefit.
This is irrelevent regardless because you love to talk about
my alleged bride so much. Santa Claus gets fewer mentions. :-)
> > > > Which is it? Am I too cheap to foot the bill for coffee for
> > > > an "equal" relationship or too romantic by going all
> > > > the way to Russia for love?
> > >
> > > Buying a bride in Russia is anything but "romantic", Mark. In fact, it
> > > reminds me a bit of those polygamous FLDS folks training their
> > > daughters to suck their uncle's dicks. Not romantic at all.
> >
> > It's apparently romantic to most women to buy their companionship
> > with dinner. As Groucho put it: We already know what they are,
> > it's just a matter of price.
>
> Again, most normal people don't find dating the same as prostitution,
> no matter who pays for dinner and no matter how the woman responds
> after dinner. :-)
I said technically meaning that many people won't believe
or admit to it even if it's true.
Let's go back to manners for a moment: Manners and etiquette
(which are related but not the same) often have people
engaging in and saying things they know to be untrue.
They'll say they had a wonderful time at a party even if
they think it was lousy, for instance.
So what people often believe and what they say they believe
are often two different things.
There's a quick way to show otherwise: If women truly don't
want men who "lie" to them, they could prove to themselves
that the men are motivated by the "pleasure of her company"
(without sex) by simply telling the man that she just waited
around for him to ask her out and to buy her meals and has no
intention of sleeping with him. She could then see if
he's still interested in paying for her.
[personal story about someone buying Parg deleted due to lack
of support and believability]
In the case of normal people going out for dinner in a non
sexual-relationship context, we've already settled that
people don't necessarily play waiting games to score
free meals (although some mooches may do that and women
themselves are quite paranoid about such women.)
Indeed, women often are quite catty about other women whom
they think buy into the notion that they are entitled
to the world buying them things and forget that men only
play such a game for other motives.
> > > > One of the things I love about my wife is how romantic and
> > > > passionate she is and how she enjoys that trait in myself.
> > > > There's no shame in "trying too hard" to please valued people
> > > > and good manners are a natural part of that sentiment rather than
> > > > a mechanical relationship ritual.
> > >
> > > I think that good manners and romance serve couples well, Mark. You
> > > won't get an argument from me there.
> >
> > You'd have to have a partner to have credibility to talk about
> > what makes a relationship work.
>
> Not really.
I put much of my personal life on the line here because I think
all of these principles and ideas we discuss matter only if
they apply to real situations.
This is a good time to observe that this applies to much of your
agenda's long term survival in many ways: It's all about
what matters to people and the risks they are willing to take
for what they believe in. As long as women depend upon
western men's goodwill for their equality, men can remove
it at anytime. It's a matter of taking calculated risks.
Men seem to be much better at doing that even today.
> But I'd certainly either need to have an actual loving
> relationship at some point in my life, or have done a lot of research
> on one. :-) Nice fishing trip tho.
No need to fish. We ALL know you don't have a partner
and your personal life fell apart a long time ago.
> > Indeed, this explains why the children of unwed mothers tend to
> > be socioeconomically disadvantaged: their mother didn't
> > have the social skills to get along with adults and often even
> > to support themselves so they aren't in a good position to
> > instill such values in children.
>
> I think that many, many poor and uneducated people lack social skills
> whether they are mothers or not, Mark. Obviously, the more education a
> mother has, the more she will have to pass onto her
> children....INCLUDING, but not limited to social skills.
But... you claimed that western women were almost all virtually
educated and had work outside of the home and could do everything
men could do plus gestate.
Plenty of working class men have been able to raise productive
citizens. Let us know when these women can keep up. Chop chop.
> And,
> society tends to blame abandoning dads more for the poverty concerns of
> single moms.
But what society isn't doing is fixing the problem of these
children in these mother's care. It doesn't make the problem
go away.
> > > That doesn't mean that I 'buy'> > the notion that your alleged wife would be treated that way.
> >
> > I don't think any of us believe you're in a position to 'buy' much
> > of anything. :-)
>
> Pure speculation on your part, Mark. There's no there there.
Some speculation certainly, but it's pretty clear that when
you think you've accomplished something you like to brag
about it. The problem is that you have so few things
to actually be proud about.
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
You claim you're indifferent but feel a need to take a swipe at
the guys who wrote the article. Cats don't scratch unless
they're annoyed. Meow!
> A woman has as much to lose as a man does in marriage.
You're either dishonest or incredibly naive. I'll guess a little
of both.
> Career obsessed men are no better than career obsessed women at
> marriage so the point of the original Forbes article is mute at best.
There is a difference in that career obsessed men produce
(and share) income to enable women to fulfill their sexist
needs and desires.
> Secondly, the guy who has been posting this article all over usenet
> probably couldn't get a wife if they were selling them at WalMart.
> He's just another bitter loser throwing his dodo at women online.
Plenty of women are now online. What used to be a mark of
cain is now something that normal, even hip people engage in.
Anita "coke can" Hill is to thank for making the workplace
a taboo for women to expect men to pick them up.
Since professional women spend a lot of their time at work,
they often don't have any alternative in finding a man
to produce the income they need to pay for childcare
other than going online.
It's taken a good 10 years for internet dating to take off, but
it's now in the mainstream as much as meeting people
in bars or at church socials.
regards,
PolishKnight
catbr...@yahoo.com
When I bought this old house I found that there were wooden floors
under the ratty old carpets, so I ripped the carpets out.
A guy named Angelo who runs a garage fixes and maintains my vehicle,
every Xmas I drop off a bottle off a bottle of single malt scotch at
his garage. My SUV runs perfectly.
The lawn? Gardening has become one of my hobbies. During "lawn season"
I hire a neighbor's son to mow it. Cute boy. He always stammers and
studders around me.
My point is this; I am very happy that you and your husband have worked
out an amicable division of labor. But many women find other ways to
solve those problems without a husband.
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
Nonsense. We are involved in a dispassionate online discussion. I truly
don't care about the article and I would urge other women to feel the
same way. You WISH it were a matter of some personal sensitivity - and
you may continue to wish. But this is really flogging a dead horse.
> > A woman has as much to lose as a man does in marriage.
>
> You're either dishonest or incredibly naive. I'll guess a little
> of both.
How so? Marriage limits one's freedom, whether they are men or women.
It entangles finances, involves those nasty little creatures called
"children", I could go on and on about the encumbering complications.
> > Career obsessed men are no better than career obsessed women at
> > marriage so the point of the original Forbes article is mute at best.
>
> There is a difference in that career obsessed men produce
> (and share) income to enable women to fulfill their sexist
> needs and desires.
Then don't marry! It's as simple as that. If you personally feel that
marriage is a major imposition upon you - don't marry! Then you are
free not to participate in someone's alleged "sexist desires."
> > Secondly, the guy who has been posting this article all over usenet
> > probably couldn't get a wife if they were selling them at WalMart.
> > He's just another bitter loser throwing his dodo at women online.
>
> Plenty of women are now online. What used to be a mark of
> cain is now something that normal, even hip people engage in.
And what is this that you speak of? What "hip" people are doing what?
> Anita "coke can" Hill is to thank for making the workplace
> a taboo for women to expect men to pick them up.
Trust me, a workplace free of sexual harrassment is a blessing. I'm not
hypersensitive about it - but it is a relief not to have to deal with
it.
> Since professional women spend a lot of their time at work,
> they often don't have any alternative in finding a man
> to produce the income they need to pay for childcare
> other than going online.
You seem to be somewhat behind the times - I produce my own income. I
don't need anyone elses. I have no children and have no plans on
"spawning" either.
> It's taken a good 10 years for internet dating to take off, but
> it's now in the mainstream as much as meeting people
> in bars or at church socials.
I've never had any trouble meeting men in real life and in real time.
If people feel the need to date online - fine. What is that to me?
I spend a lot of time at work - I like my work. I have a nice little
batch of friends and a boyfriend.
If other find that sort of thing online - good for them!
> regards,
> PolishKnight
Cat
(Swedish Princess)
The Curmudgeon
wrote:
There's nothing wrong with marrying a "career woman". Nobody was
actually saying that. All that Forbes article was saying was that men
just might want to think twice before they do it, and then it
presented a raft of facts and statistics to back it up. Of course the
feminist-dominated media gatekeepers and controllers screamed in
outrage at this. Even though women commentators have in the past said
essentially the same thing.
The writer apparently hit a nerve dead-on, and the reaction he
provoked is to me an indication that such an article was spot-on
the Curmudgeon
Heidi Graw
><catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1157569569.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip)
>Cat wrote:
> When I bought this old house I found that there were wooden floors
> under the ratty old carpets, so I ripped the carpets out.
> A guy named Angelo who runs a garage fixes and maintains my vehicle,
> every Xmas I drop off a bottle off a bottle of single malt scotch at
> his garage. My SUV runs perfectly.
> The lawn? Gardening has become one of my hobbies. During "lawn season"
> I hire a neighbor's son to mow it. Cute boy. He always stammers and
> studders around me.
> My point is this; I am very happy that you and your husband have worked
> out an amicable division of labor. But many women find other ways to
> solve those problems without a husband.
Oh, for sure. I knew one divorced woman who managed quite nicely to
maintain her own house and renovate it. She also fixed her own appliances.
All she did was buy a few guide books and got busy doing things for herself
her own way without the hassle of trying to negotiate or argue to try to
reach an agreement if the husband had different ideas. I've also talked to
women who found it much easier raising their children without the husbands
around. Things simply moved much smoother and more efficiently without that
extra body to argue with or do things for. They've found that quite often
their husbands weren't helpful or supportive, but rather more baggage that
the wives had to deal with. After a while it simply got too tiresome. In
their minds, the divorce was the appropriate action to take. Get rid of
that emotional burden! Ah well...it's not easy finding that right partner.
Sometimes one just has to try out a few. And sometimes it's probably best
not to get married at all. ;-)
Heidi
amused onlooker
news:8b9uf29427jcfja2o...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:18:47 GMT, "Avenger" <mu...@avengers.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Provided that she has a large income and is capable of keeping you in the
>>manner you're accustomed to. And that she's home on time to cook and do
>>the
>>housework and is available for sex if you desire it :o) Under these
>>conditions I see no reason to object to a female working.
>
> There's nothing wrong with marrying a "career woman". Nobody was
> actually saying that. All that Forbes article was saying was that men
> just might want to think twice before they do it, and then it
> presented a raft of facts and statistics to back it up. Of course the
> feminist-dominated media gatekeepers and controllers screamed in
> outrage at this.
And that's because marriage is a VERY sweet deal for women in the west at
this time. If hubby deserts her, she gets everything. If she files for
divorce because let's say "he was emotionally cold" or some such shite then
she still gets nearly everything. Feminists and women in general do not want
this apple cart upset.
> Even though women commentators have in the past said
> essentially the same thing.
Ah but you see that was different. When women screamed that they were
oppressed by marriage they thought that men were having all the fun because
they had jobs in factories and other such boring, tedious and dangerous
occupations. Now they are learning that work is crap for most people. Most
people end up in "jobs" not "careers". I mean with all of todays home
entertainment available lots of people both male and female would rather
find someone to allow them to stay at home. Plus with all this modern
technology it's easy to keep a home in good order these days without working
very hard.
Of course another reason feminists screamed oppression about marriage was
they thought they held the upper hand and all men needed a wife. Thats
turned out to be untrue. Hence the large amounts of men not wanting to get
married in the west. And befor some harpy say's "we dont need you" then why
are books like Debbie Maken's "Getting Serious About Getting Married"
appearing. These books blame men for not wanting to commit when really it's
the women who are making themselves unmarketable in the marriage game. They
wont admit this though.
> The writer apparently hit a nerve dead-on, and the reaction he
> provoked is to me an indication that such an article was spot-on
And hopefully the debate on the Forbe forums will be seen by lots of wealthy
men and make them realize that the concept of western marriage has become an
utter fucking joke.
As Paul McCartney is learning.
PolishKnight
Then don't post! :-)
Just as you argue that men needn't marry below, you needn't post
if you truly are indifferent and don't care to discuss the issue.
Truly indifferent people also don't "urge" others to do things.
> > > A woman has as much to lose as a man does in marriage.
> >
> > You're either dishonest or incredibly naive. I'll guess a little
> > of both.
>
> How so? Marriage limits one's freedom, whether they are men or women.
> It entangles finances, involves those nasty little creatures called
> "children", I could go on and on about the encumbering complications.
You were a child once. Feminism reminds me of the shaker religion
except that feminists produce photos of vacations they've taken
due to their lifestyle while the shakers produced spartan furniture.
> > > Career obsessed men are no better than career obsessed women at
> > > marriage so the point of the original Forbes article is mute at best.
> >
> > There is a difference in that career obsessed men produce
> > (and share) income to enable women to fulfill their sexist
> > needs and desires.
>
> Then don't marry! It's as simple as that. If you personally feel that
> marriage is a major imposition upon you - don't marry! Then you are
> free not to participate in someone's alleged "sexist desires."
Non sequitur. We were discussing the comparitive negative impacts
of marriage upon men and women and what career men and women
differently bring (or not bring) to the table.
> > > Secondly, the guy who has been posting this article all over usenet
> > > probably couldn't get a wife if they were selling them at WalMart.
> > > He's just another bitter loser throwing his dodo at women online.
> >
> > Plenty of women are now online. What used to be a mark of
> > cain is now something that normal, even hip people engage in.
>
> And what is this that you speak of? What "hip" people are doing what?
I'm talking about people who use dating sites and chat rooms to
meet people.
> > Anita "coke can" Hill is to thank for making the workplace
> > a taboo for women to expect men to pick them up.
>
> Trust me, a workplace free of sexual harrassment is a blessing. I'm not
> hypersensitive about it - but it is a relief not to have to deal with
> it.
But the rules require all men to assume that you're hypersensitive.
Consequently, to follow the rules, businessmen must always keep in
the back of their mind at all times that they're dealing with you.
So it's ironic that in our modern times that we're perhaps more
sexist than ever in how we evaluate people in the workplace.
> > Since professional women spend a lot of their time at work,
> > they often don't have any alternative in finding a man
> > to produce the income they need to pay for childcare
> > other than going online.
>
> You seem to be somewhat behind the times - I produce my own income. I
> don't need anyone elses. I have no children and have no plans on
> "spawning" either.
This isn't all about you.
Ken Chaddock
Probably as often as the bathroom needs cleanng...unless she insists
that it needs cleaning every day :-)
> How often does the laundry need to be done? :-)
Depends upon how much dirty laundry you produce and how large your
wardrobe is...we get away with doing laundry once a week...four loads,
that's 5 minutes a load of very light labour to put it in the
washer/transfer it to the dryer and about 20 minutes to iron the few
things that need ironing and another 10 to fold and put stuff away...say
about 50 minutes total...maybe a hour of very light work...
Coincidentally the lawn need mowing once a week...which is an hour and
a half of moderate labour (easily break a sweat) while simply mulching
and about two hours of much harder labour when bagging...
>>Yes, heard the bitching and griping, and found that it was completely and
>>utterly unwarranted. Needless to say, sis-in-law wasn't too happy when I
>>pointed out all the things her hubby was busy doing outside, while she was
>>"toiling" around throwing dirty laundry into the machine. She also had a
>>cleaning lady who'd come in once a week to give the house a thorough
>>scrubbing.
> Lucky gal. In any event, you only tune up a car once in a blue moon,
> while laundry is ongoing.
I "tune up" my car once a month...which is about a three hour job and
quite comparable to doing the laundry...plus, it takes a bit more skill
and knowledge than doing the laundry...
...Ken
Hyerdahl
PolishKnight wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > PolishKnight wrote:
> [...]
> > > My share of the bill is irrelevent since I never indicated that I
> > > would refuse to pay it. So we're strictly talking about her coffee
> > > cost.
> >
> > Mark, if YOU invited HER....the total cost is yours.
>
> And I've already said I did not.
Did not what? The scenerio was a scenerio. :-)
> But even so, all you're doing is just dumping one sexist expectation
> upon another much like a sexist pancake. If the woman decides
> to enjoy the sexist expectation of the man paying on top of
> him doing all the asking out, it's still sexist.
I don't think so at all. After all, most people date in order to get
to know each other, and that requires more than one date. :-)
> But to your credit, this dog is hunting (at least halfway).
> I've heard a number of normal women in my age range use this
> rationalization to imply that they weren't demanding men
> pay their way even as they knew that the end effect was
> virtually the same.
I still don't see the problem. If the men ask the women out on a first
date, the men should pay.
There's nothing sexist about that.
>
> "Just remember Jerry! It's not a lie if YOU believe it!" --
> George Castanza, Seinfeld
I love that show. :-) And I'm sure you believe all your lies.
> Men on the other hand generally didn't bother with this
> rationalization when it came for paying for dates.
> Many responded with typical sexism knowing that women
> didn't mind sexism when it was in their favor, or they
> would admit (privately) that they were too insecure
> to not pay, or they had ulterior motives.
Again, I don't analyse the first date scenerio to death, since most
people have second and third dates. The people who don't get to the
second date are bound to get a skewed view of dating.
> So in other words, while you say "men lie", the reality is that
> women often lie to themselves both about their own
> reasons for what they expect from men as well as what
> motivates the men _from the beginning of the relationship_.
I don't think women lie about first dates at all, Mark. I think they
will acknowledge that if men ask them out, men usually pay for the
first date.
> > > > > Such an accusation is hollow since women don't want
> > > > > to foot the bill either as much as, say, men saying women are lazy
> > > > > for not doing the housework.
Again, if the women ask the men out, I'm assuming that the women would
pay. I know a gal who invited half the team of "The Thunder From Down
Under" to her birthday party. She paid. (sort of). :-)
> > > >
> > > > I have no objection at all to women asking men out for dates, Mark. If
> > > > they had asked you, they'd pay the $8.00. :-)
> > >
> > > Who says they didn't? :-)
> > >
> > I do. :-)
>
> So your shallow self-serving rationalization is exposed since
> when you talk about women asking men out for dates, you don't
> expect it to happen anyway.
I do expect women to pay for the first dates where they do the
inviting. I simply don't expect women to ask YOU.
>
> > > Just as savvy feminine women of the past could cleverly steer
> > > a conversation towards getting a man to suggest that they
> > > go out together, whose to say I couldn't do the same with women?
> >
> > Yes, but how many women would want to pick up on it? :-) I bet, in
> > your case, those women were really dense. :-)
>
> Generally speaking, isn't someone dense if they actually
> believe that game playing nonsense above, for real?
:-) Someone undense would have guessed exactly where you wanted them
to go....so all the women you did this with must have been really
dense, right? :-)
> Hell, it sounds as if such women are ready to believe in a lot
> of nonsense that men "lie" to them about. These women
> might as well have "please tell me lies" written on their shirts.
So, are you suggesting that women would rather hear lies from men than
have those men express who they really are and what they really want?
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you ....where sexist men are concerned.
> The stage where discussing activities changes into someone
> getting the asker albatross around their neck is quite
> subtle really. I recall suggesting to one woman to
> go to the beach. She then added that she would like to
> go for coffee afterwards. I didn't _ask_ her to go
> for that coffee. It was _her_ suggestion.
Well, we all know how you feel about treating someone to coffee, Mark.
You're really the last of the big spenders. :-) The real question is
whether or not you'd get date number two after being so petty, eh?
>
> > > The technicality of "who asked out whom" can easily be reversed
> > > when two people are talking about different things they like
> > > doing.
> >
> > Again, you probably ran into only women who couldn't take the hint.
>
> There are plenty of situations too where asker pays doesn't
> apply. Personal ads for instance.
Well, I'm sure you have loads of experience with those. :-)
>
> > > Even so, polite people don't play games to stick the dinner
> > > check on someone else.
> >
> > Moral people don't do that, Mark, but probably polite people do it all
> > the time. After all, those who ask people out are expected to pay.
>
> I think now you're playing a semantics weasel game with morality
> and politeness. Politeness is based upon behaviour that is
> considerate of other people's feelings and interests and
> this is related to morality but it not necessarily equivalent
> since it's possible to hurt people's feelings but still be
> moral.
I don't think moral people try to "stick" anyone with anything.
However, first dates are still first dates, Mark, and yes...it's more
than possible to be polite without being moral. It's also possible to
accept someone paying for your ice cream without being immoral. And
perhaps that's where your argument falls thru the cracks.
> Irregardless, if you imply that someone should choose at times
> between manners and morals, I would say that morals probably
> trumps manners. For example, being rude and bumping into people
> to get to a child to save it's life.
Yes, morals always trumps manners, REGARDLESS of the situation.
> > > > That's the point: You love to portray> men as lazy for not doing their
> > > > "share" of the housework while> looking the other way when women are
> > > > mooches.
> > > >
> > > > Well, you know my theory, here, and those of Miss Manners....that the
> > > > asker pays.
> > >
> > > Miss Manners has been asked other etiquette questions including
> > > whether someone whose invited to a wedding knowing that the
> > > person cannot attend should be obligated to provide a gift
> > > by mail (apparently, brides are trying to milk their older relatives
> > > in this manner). She said no because of the intent of the
> > > invitation.
> >
> > Trying to denounce brides for sending invitations won't cut it here,
> > Mark, since invitations often double a service, as announcements of
> > weddings. And, Miss Manners is correct, that a wedding invitation,
> > being also an announcement does not mean a gift must be purchased.
>
> Perhaps you read something I didn't. Miss Manners
> does _not_ justify the older relative not sending the gift
> due to that rationalization. She says simply that it's understood by
> all parties that the relative will be unable to attend
> and therefore will not have the same etiquette obligations
> that a person who could conceivably attend would have.
Mark, it's the same for a relative far away, or a distant relative, or
a relative who simply RSVPs that they cannot attend. Sending a gift is
optional and you are not breaking any rule by simply sending a card to
acknowledge the wedding. Of course, a wedding invitation is not the
same as an invitation to> coffee.
>
> Agreed. But you've clearly shown that the invitation in this
> case has been solicited through dishonest or non-reciprocal
> means showing that it isn't a similar situation as generic
> invitations.
>
Not so, Mark. Unless you are clearly letting the person know you are
NOT PAYING for a person you invite, the expectaion is that you should
pay.
> > >(edit)
> > >
> > > > Of course, women are well known for asking men to dinner as well, but
> > > > usually not on a first date. I would not call such women "mooches",
> > > > would you? The problem for Mark is that he never got second dates. :-)
> > >
> > > Most men have also washed a dish or two during their lives so
> > > by that definition, your mother didn't do all the unpaid work
> > > in her marriage... :-)
> >
> > Sure she did, Mark. Even my father said so. Once my father was
> > retired he helped a little bit, but until then, my mother held a full
> > time job, and did all the housework. This observation lead me to be
> > very careful in the choices I made. :-)
>
> If he did work later as you just admitted, then she didn't
> do _all_ the unpaid work. All it takes is a single dish...
Well, she did 99.9% of the housework; how's that?
> > > You and I both know that someone who refuses to pick up the tab
> > > for the first date is basically just looking to date for free.
> > >
This remark clarifies to all who read it the real reason you had to go
to Russia to buy a bride. :-)
Life isn't free, Mark. Dating isn't free, and first dates are still
paid for by the invitor and NOT the invitee, REGARDLESS of sex/gender.
> > > > Your problem is that after the first date, you could never
> > > > wangle a second.
> > >
> > > When I paid, regardless of who asked, there was no problem.
> > > Sexism is alive and well.
> >
> > I noticed you didn't attempt to refute my observation. Interesting.
>
> I was saying it was quite easy to get second dates merely by
> paying whether she formally asked or not (note that they didn't
> mind me paying even if they technically were the asker :-)
While I don't believe you, I do think I understand why you had to go
all the way to Russia to find a woman you could control who wouldn't
cost much. :-) But, I suspect you will learn that stocks can be
funded at the front or the back. :-)
> Indeed, one would imagine that there is no expectation of the
> man paying due to circumstances such as blind dates or
> the woman deciding to go out to a restaurant that she would
> offer to pay as you've argued above but that's not the case.
> It's simply a cheap rationalization that the woman discards
> when it doesn't suit her. That's poor manners _and_ morals.
Women offer to pay for dinner dates all the time, Mark. They just
didn't ever give you a second date. So, your assumptions are based on
all those first dates paid for by you. The gals thought they'd give
you an opportunity to meet and see if there was something worth
pursuing....and then you opened your mouth and it was all over. :-)
>
> > > > > > Women didn't want to
> > > > > > marry Mark because he was a nincompoop who would never own a house
> > > > > > $....200,000.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can't buy a house in Salinas for that but perhaps maybe in a
> > > > > poor southern military town where you claim your niece lives.
> > > > >
> > > > > > to $600.00
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My neice doesn't live in the south, but where she lives you can buy a
> > > > house for $200,000. Also, I don't live in Salinas. But it serves me just as well for you to believe that I do. :-)
> > > >
> > >(edit)
> > > > Well, even if that were so, perhaps they'd prefer such to being married
> > > > to the likes of you, Mark. :-)
> > >
> > > As I've observed before, I'm not quite so bad really. If women
> > > can't handle even a TV watching husband with his dirty socks,
> > > she's not going to enjoy having children as an unwed mother
> > > and changing diapers.
> >
> > There's a big difference between something you want, like children and
> > something you don't want like a husband who IS a child. :-)
>
> Did your mother have to supervise him when he was alone?
> Young children need to be legally supervised even if
> the adult is merely present and just stops the children
> from hurting themselves and others. Could he go to the bathroom
> by himself? Could he get out food and serve himself
> at least? I mean, surely he was able to eat while your
> mother was at work.
Mark, once my brother reached the age of a few months he could eat
alone and he was about 18 mos. when he could use the toilet, and he
could fix a simple lunch when he was 7. Children are children with the
minds of children for a long, long time. The question is one of
maturity. Immature men who can't do their fair share at home are
simply not worth the effort.
>
> If he couldn't, then he was disabled and it's shameful for
> you to even imply that was lazy. Otherwise, he was not
> as bad as a child.
Again, women don't want husbands as children, which is probably why the
divorce rate is so high.
> > > I would guess that's partly why blue staters are dying out:
> > > Kids are such a drag to the sex and the city party lifestyle.
> > >
> > > > > > and finally, women watched Mark go all the way
> > > > > > to Russia for love...PRICELESS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you mean allegedly going all the way to Russia for love? :-)
> > > >
> > > > No....I believe you went there....and several times. I just think your
> > > > wife is alleged.
> > >
> > > I know that you know that my wife is real because other people
> > > who hardly agree with me on many things also know of her.
> >
> > Huh? Now I am confused. Why would I tend to believe people who
> > allegedly "know of her" and who don't "agree with" you? Do you think
> > that people who "hardly" agree with you are somehow more ....believable
> > than you? :-)
>
> Not necessarily "more" believable than me but certainly people
> who tend to disagree with me are not going to be motivated
> to lie for my benefit.
Mark, I have no idea who you're talking about here. Perhaps you're
pretending to be someone who allegedly wrote to me? :-)
????? So, you think that is why women dated you? Wow, you really
must have a self esteem problem, Mark. And, it seems to me, in this
day and age, a man might actually be intrigued by such a woman, but who
knows. :-)
>> >
> > > > > One of the things I love about my wife is how romantic and
> > > > > passionate she is and how she enjoys that trait in myself.
> > > > > There's no shame in "trying too hard" to please valued people
> > > > > and good manners are a natural part of that sentiment rather than
> > > > > a mechanical relationship ritual.
> > > >
> > > > I think that good manners and romance serve couples well, Mark. You
> > > > won't get an argument from me there.
> > >
> > > You'd have to have a partner to have credibility to talk about
> > > what makes a relationship work.
> >
> > Not really.
>
> I put much of my personal life on the line here because I think
> all of these principles and ideas we discuss matter only if
> they apply to real situations.
I don't agree. It seems to me that people have often debated
principles effectively without resorting to the personal . However,
you are free to post what you will.
>
> (edit)
> > But I'd certainly either need to have an actual loving
> > relationship at some point in my life, or have done a lot of research
> > on one. :-) Nice fishing trip tho.
>
> No need to fish. We ALL know you don't have a partner
> and your personal life fell apart a long time ago.
????? Well, that's certainly your theory.
> > > Indeed, this explains why the children of unwed mothers tend to
> > > be socioeconomically disadvantaged: their mother didn't
> > > have the social skills to get along with adults and often even
> > > to support themselves so they aren't in a good position to
> > > instill such values in children.
> >
> > I think that many, many poor and uneducated people lack social skills
> > whether they are mothers or not, Mark. Obviously, the more education a
> > mother has, the more she will have to pass onto her
> > children....INCLUDING, but not limited to social skills.
>
> But... you claimed that western women were almost all virtually
> educated and had work outside of the home and could do everything
> men could do plus gestate.
Western women certainly have greater opportunities than women in
Afghanistan. Even you should be able to agree with that. And women
are already doing everything men are doing plus gestating.
> Plenty of working class men have been able to raise productive
> citizens. Let us know when these women can keep up. Chop chop.
>
> > And,
> > society tends to blame abandoning dads more for the poverty concerns of
> > single moms.
>
> But what society isn't doing is fixing the problem of these
> children in these mother's care. It doesn't make the problem
> go away.
Well, when the US administration changes, perhaps you'll SEE what
society can do to fix whatever problems need fixing. From what I've
heard the education of the Republicans is going to be a blood bath.
> That doesn't mean that I 'buy'> > the notion that your alleged wife would be treated that way.
> > >
> > > I don't think any of us believe you're in a position to 'buy' much
> > > of anything. :-)
> >
> > Pure speculation on your part, Mark. There's no there there.
>
> Some speculation certainly, but it's pretty clear that when
> you think you've accomplished something you like to brag
> about it. The problem is that you have so few things
> to actually be proud about.
Well...let's see. You seem to want some personal information about me
....Hmmm. I'm proud to have been a good offspring to my parents, and a
good parent to my offspring. I'm proud to have contributed to my
community in terms of my vocations and my avocations, and I'm proud to
call myself a feminist and egalitarian. I'm proud of my companion
and partner; we've shared a lifetime together, and I'm hopeful that I
have given at least as much love and support as I have received. I
take pride in those talents I've acquired over the years in my
vocations and avocations, and I'm especially proud of my most recent
accomplishment of joining a local orchestra as second violin player,
first stand. It's not something I thought I could do after not
playing in a group for so many years. So, I surprised myself. Most
importantly, I'm proud of the times I've placed my own needs to the
side in order that others be loved.
>
> regards,
> PolishKnight
Ken Chaddock
> Heidi Graw wrote:
>
>>>"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1157407926....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>> That being
>>>the case, someone has to clean the house and if you aren't doing your
>>>share, she simply may chose to share her life with someone who will.
>>
>>For the time it takes hubby to check the fluids in the car, the oil, water
>>and transmissions fluid and tops these up, and checks the tire pressure,
>>I've already scrubbed up the bathroom. So, what is there to argue about
>>when it comes to who does more or less of the unpaid work?
>
>
> Again, the car doesn't take as much care as housework, especially when
> kids are involved. But it may be that his work outside or around the
> house takes as much time as yours, inside, and perhaps that is what is
> agreeable to both of you.
>
>
>>What I don't like about these housework studies is that they do not include
>>the yard, car and home maintenance work. And more often than not, I see men
>>doing these things. I would prefer to read more balanced and fair studies
>>when it comes to doing unpaid work in and around the *whole* home..yard and
>>vehicles included....just not the indoor stuff.
>
>
> The real problem with what you suggest is that some of the things men
> do outside the house are not things done on a regular basis. For
> example, my father used to take down our storm windows in the late
> spring, and put them up again in the late fall. It was a seasonal
> task. To take the windows down took about an hour. To put them back
> up took about 3 hours. I could compare this kind of task with my
> mother's canning fruits and jams.
> The regular housework is ongoing, boring and never ending.
>
>
>>So, if hubby is mowing the lawn, the wife may be vacuum cleaning.
>
>
> Sure, but I vacuum my carpets every other day.
Ah, but there's the rub Hyerdahl, do they *need* vacuuming every other
day or is that just you satisfying your own subjective (and perhaps
unnecessary or unrealistic) standard of cleanliness ? After all, what
*would* the effect be if you were to only vacuum them once a week ?
> Mowing the lawn I only have to do once every 2.5 weeks in the summer,
That may be typical where you live but where I live the lawn needs
mowing and trimming once a week most of the growing year (Early May to
Late November), though I can probably get away with a week and a half or
even two weeks during late July-early August when the weather is really
hot and dry and the grass isn't growing much...
> and once a mo. in the spring, winter and fall. So the two are not
> really comparable.
And what if your partner felt that the lawn needed to be mowed every
week ? Why would his subjective standard of lawn maintenance be any less
valid than your subjective standard for vacuuming ?
>>And as far as housework studies go, this lawnmowing is *not* factored
>>in. It makes the man look like he's not doing his fair share...and this
>>is simply not true!
>>
>
> Again, the things you have to compare are things either done on a
> regular basis like cooking, cleaning, laundry as compared to ??????
> And then, you can compare things on an irregular basis like lawn
> mowing.
It's only irregular based upon *your* subjective standard of what is
more important to *you*...the woman next door cuts her grass every three
days and works in her garden for several hours every day
(her husband does the cooking and laundry and house chores)...the
difference is *her* area of interest is the yard and she has a very high
*subjective* standard surrounding that...though her yard *IS* the best
kept in the neighbourhood...Also, there's an old saying "when you own a
home, there's *always* something to fix or paint or maintain...and it's
usually the man who does it...ever heard of a "honey do list" ? Mine is
three pages long and never gets completed because there are always
things being added to the open end by Laura...
And that's the point Hyerdahl...to many (most?) men, the "high"
standard of housework which many (most?) women demand is very subjective
and unnecessarily high. That doesn't make her high standard *wrong* but
it doesn't make his lower "standard" wrong either...just different...but
it's not his "fair share" to be working to her unreasonably high
standard. The same goes for the car and the yard and household repairs
and maintenance...she shouldn't have to mow the lawn more than once
every two weeks if that produces a (to her) satisfactory level of lawn
maintenance...if *he* wants it cut every three days he should damned
well do it himself...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
>>"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1157489356....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>>Heidi wrote:
>>>I have a former sister-in-law who used to gripe about her husband's
>>>laziness. She'd be busy folding laundry while he was outside giving her
>>>car
>>>a tune-up! Sheez!
>
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>Well, my car needs a tune up once every.....??????? How often does
>>the laundry need to be done? :-)
>
>
> It's not just tune-ups for the car, though...rototilling the garden,
> cleaning the eaves troughs, fixing leaks, pruning the trees, fixing the
> fence, painting the house, power-washing the patio, recaulking the windows,
> fixing the appliances, and the list goes on and on...general home
> maintenance, not just cleaning.
>
> So, if the husband complains there's a leak in the roof, I suppose he can
> always demand his career wife ought to climb up on the ladder and fix it,
> while he's babysitting the kids...playing games with them out in the yard.
> ;-)
"From the rising to the setting of the sun, a husband's work is never
done" ;-)
> And as I said earlier, if hubby chooses to just sit down to take a breather,
> the wife should simply just join him. Sit down when *he* does! And if the
> kids run amok, let *him* deal with it! When they get on his nerves, he's
> bound to do something about it. ;-)
Exactly, and if they get on her nerves before they get on his, she
should deal with it...not nag him to do it for her...the fact that he
may have a bit more tolerance for the rambunctiousness of the children
is NOT necessarily a bad thing and IS totally male...we do seem to
tolerate kids being kids a little better than many women, en français
"cool ma poule" ;-)
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
>>"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1157489835.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>>Heidi wrote:
>>>What I don't like about these housework studies is that they do not
>>>include
>>>the yard, car and home maintenance work. And more often than not, I see
>>>men
>>>doing these things. I would prefer to read more balanced and fair
>>>studies
>>>when it comes to doing unpaid work in and around the *whole* home..yard
>>>and
>>>vehicles included....just not the indoor stuff.
>
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>The real problem with what you suggest is that some of the things men
>>do outside the house are not things done on a regular basis. For
>>example, my father used to take down our storm windows in the late
>>spring, and put them up again in the late fall. It was a seasonal
>>task.
>
>
> Exactly. However, there are 4 seasons! Year-round there is stuff to do
> around the house...the *whole* house..inside and outside.
>
>
>>To take the windows down took about an hour. To put them back
>>up took about 3 hours. I could compare this kind of task with my
>>mother's canning fruits and jams.
>>The regular housework is ongoing, boring and never ending.
>
>
> At issue is *unpaid work*...the focus of the studies however, only focus on
> *inside the home and child rearing.* There is all sorts of unpaid work men
> do...they could be doing this in the yard, in the garage and even out in the
> community. For example, once a week while I'm sitting around watching TV
> for one hour, my husband is out in the community doing unpaid volunteer work
> for one and a half hours. This is work that is benefitting not only his own
> kid, but other kids, too. Yet, this sort of unpaid work he's doing is not
> counted!
Exactly Heidi...I've coached youth soccer for many years, I was Scout
leader for 15 years, as I've noted here before I'm very involved in a
national pro-choice organization and I volunteer via a pediatric cancer
support group at the local Children's Hospital...this takes a
significant amounts of time...*NONE* of which is "paid". These hours are
arguably at least as valuable as sitting around watching TV while the
kids are all snugged up in their beds or leisure shopping with your
girlfriends...both activities that are "counted" as women's "unpaid"
work, while the volunteer work that benefits the community as a whole is
not even considered...does tend to skew the results just a little...
> As for sister-in-law, while she was out for drinks with her girlfriends, and
> the kids were offloaded to a babysitter, the husband was busy as a
> *volunteer* fire-fighter on top of his regular paid work. Yet, *she*
> considered him lazy! So, while she was enjoying fun and entertainment, her
> husband was out there saving lives, fighting fires, putting his own life at
> risk.
Yep...but you don't expect Hyerdahl to acknowledge this do you ?
> Unpaid work does not just happen *inside* the home, it happens elsewhere,
> too...and often that outside unpaid work helps children...not only one's
> own, but other people's too. Yet this sort of work is not counted and
> acknowledged...and I think it should!
But Heidi, feminists have spent the last 50 years trying to demonize
and belittle and discredit men, they're not about to suddenly accept
than man actually have *value*
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
You tell a very common story Heidi. I've read articles and seen studies
that say pretty much what you've said here. In fact several studies
suggest that the majority of divorced women are *sorry* that they
divorced their husbands and would "undo" it if they could...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
> rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
>
>>
> What surveys say is that women claim that men are doing less than
>
>>what they would like. But there is easy proof that it is not men that
>>are demanding that this sort of "work" get done in the first place.
>
>
> That isn't the issue, Ralph. If either partner is dissatisfied with
> how the house is being cleaned or maintained, it is up to both of them
> to make sure standards are met.
NO, it's not up to either of them to try to meet the unrealistic
standards of the other. What if he insists that the car needs to be
washed and waxed and vacuumed out every day ? Do you *really* think that
she should have to pitch in and help him meet such a ridiculously high
standard because it's what he "wants" ?
>>First, single men do not seem to care. They do not do "housework"
>>either.
> I assure you the standards society places on housewives, is much
> different than the ones placed on single men. I have a married friend
> who told me when she met her husband, she found a three week old
> macaroni and cheese in his cabinet. :-) How cute would that have
> been, do you suppose, in the home of ....say....a minister's wife? And
> who would be blamed?
Why would you be snooping in your minister's cupboards ?
>> Second, if guys were insisting that their hard working career
>>wife do certain home-chores - who doubts that she would not say,"If you
>>want spagetti, there is the kitchen."
> It's not a matter of "guys insisting"; it's a matter of what kind of
> cleanliness society expects and who gets blamed if standards are not
> met. I know many, many career women who hire someone to come in once a
> week.
Problem solved...and they both contributed equally since *all* the
income is matrimonial money right ;-)
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
Been there, done that...though with Laura and I it was cleaning the
oven...though I usually managed to get a more "personal" reward ;-)
...Ken
Heidi Graw
>"Ken Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
>news:XKJLg.17343$rd7.7578@edtnps89...
(snip)
>Ken wrote:
> You tell a very common story Heidi. I've read articles and seen studies
> that say pretty much what you've said here. In fact several studies
> suggest that the majority of divorced women are *sorry* that they divorced
> their husbands and would "undo" it if they could...
I think my sister-in-law's unhappiness came about because she desperately
wanted to look like some Barbie doll. She had always been a rather robust
child and teenager. Her husband met her when she was in that shape. He
liked women with some meat on them because he himself is a rather robust and
big man. However, sis-in-law, wanted to look like those skinny models in
those women's magazines. So, after their marriage, she kept herself on a
strict starvation diet so she could be thin. Then she noticed with her
weightloss that her boobs weren't big enough to her own liking...she wanted
breast implants. Then she didn't like her thighs and had liposuction done.
She also tried to put her husband on this starvation diet because she wanted
him to look like one of those slim trim male models.
So, while she ended up keeping her rather haggard and skinny looks, she
could never get her husband to look like one of those male models. We all
tried to tell her she looked fine with some meat on her. Her husband fell
in love with her partly because she was a robust and meaty woman! However,
no matter how much her own family and my family tried to tell her to stop
worrying so much about her body image, it simply didn't work. She was
determined she wanted to look like Barbie...and she also wanted her husband
to look like that Ken doll. She kept harping about his weight...she tried
to control and reduce *his* weight along with her own... in this she did not
succeed. So, she grew ever more and more miserable. Then she added the
"lazy" husband accusation. And by claiming her husband is fat and lazy, it
gave her the necessary excuse to get out of that marriage.
She's got psychological problems that she simply refuses to deal with. She's
still on that starvation diet, she looks much older than she should for her
age. She's haggard, skinny and totally miserable.
Her husband, on the other, is that happy chubby guy who everone loves as
that big cuddly teddy bear! ;-)
Ah well...I just hate those fashion magazines . I never buy them. I wish
more women would refuse, too. I wonder to what extent these fashion
magazines contribute to marital break-ups. Have you come across any studies
like that?
Heidi
pandora
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > It's not a matter of "guys insisting"; it's a matter of what kind of
> > cleanliness society expects and who gets blamed if standards are not
> > met. I know many, many career women who hire someone to come in once a
> > week.
>
> Problem solved...and they both contributed equally since *all* the
> income is matrimonial money right ;-)
Indeed. Problem solved. However, it might not be especially if the
individual was hired *because* one of the spouses wasn't willing to pull
their weight with the housework. I know of many career couples who actually
DO share the housework and childcare and yardcare and car care. Why?
Because they a) cannot afford to pay someone else to do the work and b) feel
that these things should be shared. Certainly they should be shared duties
in order that one isn't left holding the bag and feeling they are playing
servant to the other. So, one makes the meals and the other cleans up;
nightly, not once in a while. One takes care of the cars and the other
takes care of the yardwork. One dusts and vacuums, the other does the
laundry.
To me, it isn't about WHO does WHAT but that neither partner feels the other
is being lazy. If someone feels that way, they should sit down and talk
about it. Talk about what expectations they feel are reasonable and what
aren't. And just how they are going to take care of things. Nothing should
be left to chance or whoever can't stand the mess first.
Marg
> ...Ken
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Unpaid work does not just happen *inside* the home, it happens elsewhere,
>> too...and often that outside unpaid work helps children...not only one's
>> own, but other people's too. Yet this sort of work is not counted and
>> acknowledged...and I think it should!
> Ken wrote:
> But Heidi, feminists have spent the last 50 years trying to demonize and
> belittle and discredit men, they're not about to suddenly accept than man
> actually have *value*
It would be a very sad and boring world without men to provide some
excitement. Somebody's got to rile up the wimmin folk, non? ;-)
Even when I lived on my own, did my own housekeeping and gardening, and
light-weight maintenance on the house and my vehicle, there were lots of
times when it was useful for me to hire a man to do some of the more heavier
work...ie. replace those large picture windows in my livingroom and
bedroom....things I couldn't lift even if I tried. It's the man's physical
strength that I find useful.
I once joked with a handiman that I all I needed was a man with some
muscle...he didn't even have to have a brain or anything...I could always
tell him what to do! LOL... ;-) This comment is not to be taken seriously!
It just so happened that six months after I said that, a man wheedled
himself into my life and he came with a bonus! A brain! An intelligent
brain! ;-)
So, yes...men do have their uses...they're better equipped to do the
bullwork...and they also enjoy showing off those muscles to any female
admirers! ;-)
Heidi
catbr...@yahoo.com
amused onlooker wrote:
> And that's because marriage is a VERY sweet deal for women in the west at
> this time. If hubby deserts her, she gets everything. If she files for
> divorce because let's say "he was emotionally cold" or some such shite then
> she still gets nearly everything. Feminists and women in general do not want
> this apple cart upset.
This is typical hyperbole of the sort that is common over in soc.men.
Again - maybe you should just not marry.
I know you're looking for a way to blame all of this on "feminists" and
turn yourselves into victims - but there are too many other dynamics in
play - including economic demands and a greater degree of choices
available to both men and women.
> > Even though women commentators have in the past said
> > essentially the same thing.
>
> Ah but you see that was different. When women screamed that they were
> oppressed by marriage they thought that men were having all the fun because
> they had jobs in factories and other such boring, tedious and dangerous
> occupations. Now they are learning that work is crap for most people.
Maybe your work is crap, but you can't make such a sweeping
generalization and hope to have a shred of credibility.
And it appears that you are "history challenged" if you believe that
women have only recently entered the workforce.
> Most
> people end up in "jobs" not "careers". I mean with all of todays home
> entertainment available lots of people both male and female would rather
> find someone to allow them to stay at home. Plus with all this modern
> technology it's easy to keep a home in good order these days without working
> very hard.
Again - you are speaking mainly of yourself. Maybe YOU want to stay
home and play video games but that sounds like a living death to me.
> Of course another reason feminists screamed oppression about marriage was
> they thought they held the upper hand and all men needed a wife. Thats
> turned out to be untrue. Hence the large amounts of men not wanting to get
> married in the west. And befor some harpy say's "we dont need you" then why
> are books like Debbie Maken's "Getting Serious About Getting Married"
> appearing.
Because SOME women (especially the ones coming from certain ethnic
groups) still feel they have to get married. As some men. Otherwise
they wouldn't be so obsessed with this issue online.
> These books blame men for not wanting to commit when really it's
> the women who are making themselves unmarketable in the marriage game. They
> wont admit this though.
What is marketable, what "unmarketable?"
A bitter and resentful man who blame women (via the scapegoat of the
feminist) has pretty much zero market value.
> > The writer apparently hit a nerve dead-on, and the reaction he
> > provoked is to me an indication that such an article was spot-on
Oh bullshit! Your lot keeps bringing this up and keeps getting their
heads handed to them.
> And hopefully the debate on the Forbe forums will be seen by lots of wealthy
> men and make them realize that the concept of western marriage has become an
> utter fucking joke.
>
> As Paul McCartney is learning.
How old was Paul McCartney? How old his wife? The age difference was
simply too great.
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
Why, is it upsetting your little pitty party?
> Just as you argue that men needn't marry below, you needn't post
> if you truly are indifferent and don't care to discuss the issue.
> Truly indifferent people also don't "urge" others to do things.
Please don't tell me how to amuse myself over my morning coffee.
> > > > A woman has as much to lose as a man does in marriage.
> > >
> > > You're either dishonest or incredibly naive. I'll guess a little
> > > of both.
> >
> > How so? Marriage limits one's freedom, whether they are men or women.
> > It entangles finances, involves those nasty little creatures called
> > "children", I could go on and on about the encumbering complications.
>
> You were a child once. Feminism reminds me of the shaker religion
> except that feminists produce photos of vacations they've taken
> due to their lifestyle while the shakers produced spartan furniture.
Maybe my job is my Shaker furniture? And, of course, the Shakers were
celibate. I'm not.
> > > > Career obsessed men are no better than career obsessed women at
> > > > marriage so the point of the original Forbes article is mute at best.
> > >
> > > There is a difference in that career obsessed men produce
> > > (and share) income to enable women to fulfill their sexist
> > > needs and desires.
> >
> > Then don't marry! It's as simple as that. If you personally feel that
> > marriage is a major imposition upon you - don't marry! Then you are
> > free not to participate in someone's alleged "sexist desires."
>
> Non sequitur. We were discussing the comparitive negative impacts
> of marriage upon men and women and what career men and women
> differently bring (or not bring) to the table.
No - this thread started as a generalized whine about "career" women
and their alleged poor prospects as wives.
Andrea Yates was a "good Christian" stay-at-home mom. Her "career" was
farting out one little sprog after another for Jesus. And the "good
Christian" wife of a minister in (Alabama?) that murdered her husband -
what was her "career"?
> > > > Secondly, the guy who has been posting this article all over usenet
> > > > probably couldn't get a wife if they were selling them at WalMart.
> > > > He's just another bitter loser throwing his dodo at women online.
> > >
> > > Plenty of women are now online. What used to be a mark of
> > > cain is now something that normal, even hip people engage in.
> >
> > And what is this that you speak of? What "hip" people are doing what?
>
> I'm talking about people who use dating sites and chat rooms to
> meet people.
Oh...is that "hip?" I really don't know, I don't visit chat rooms or do
online dating.
> > > Anita "coke can" Hill is to thank for making the workplace
> > > a taboo for women to expect men to pick them up.
> >
> > Trust me, a workplace free of sexual harrassment is a blessing. I'm not
> > hypersensitive about it - but it is a relief not to have to deal with
> > it.
>
> But the rules require all men to assume that you're hypersensitive.
The men that I work with know that I am not hypersensitive. They learn
which women are good sports and which are not and make the necessary
adjustments.
> Consequently, to follow the rules, businessmen must always keep in
> the back of their mind at all times that they're dealing with you.
Again, very hyperbolic.
> So it's ironic that in our modern times that we're perhaps more
> sexist than ever in how we evaluate people in the workplace.
Now THAT is a non sequitur.
> > > Since professional women spend a lot of their time at work,
> > > they often don't have any alternative in finding a man
> > > to produce the income they need to pay for childcare
> > > other than going online.
> >
> > You seem to be somewhat behind the times - I produce my own income. I
> > don't need anyone elses. I have no children and have no plans on
> > "spawning" either.
>
> This isn't all about you.
Yes, but I am a "professional woman" and therefore the demographic
group in subject here. And I know other single professional women and
we network our opinions.
I also know professional married women - so you can't marginalize my
knowledge of the subject without beggering your own insights.
Sorry sweety - you don't get to speak for us.
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
I am not opposed to marriage in any larger sense, it works fine for
many people. The divorce statistics often lamented by women-bashers
online ignores that more marriages succeed than fail.
And if you consider the pressures that married life is under (not by
feminists) then those success are, indeed, notable.
Cat
DairyQueenOfDeath
> amused onlooker wrote:
>
>> And that's because marriage is a VERY sweet deal for women in the west at
>> this time. If hubby deserts her, she gets everything. If she files for
>> divorce because let's say "he was emotionally cold" or some such shite then
>> she still gets nearly everything. Feminists and women in general do not want
>> this apple cart upset.
>
> This is typical hyperbole of the sort that is common over in soc.men.
And your objection is typical of the socialist feminists who troll and
endlessly bicker in a place that you claim to hate.
Divorce is the best victim card women can play. They get it all, usually.
Especially if they are a mother. Mothers are the best victims. Just ask
Hillary Clinton. You probably worship her.
> Again - maybe you should just not marry.
Bully for you Einstein!!!! Isnt that what he's saying all along?
> I know you're looking for a way to blame all of this on "feminists" and
> turn yourselves into victims -
Hahaha! So you admit it, that's what feminists do? Play victim?
PolishKnight
> PolishKnight wrote:
[etc]
> > > > > I'm a career woman and I am not outraged in any way. In fact, I am
> > > > > profoundly indifferent.
> > > > > First of all, marriage is not for everyone. Marry if you like, or
> > > > > don't, what's the issue?
> > > >
> > > > You claim you're indifferent but feel a need to take a swipe at
> > > > the guys who wrote the article. Cats don't scratch unless
> > > > they're annoyed. Meow!
> > >
> > > Nonsense. We are involved in a dispassionate online discussion. I truly
> > > don't care about the article and I would urge other women to feel the
> > > same way. You WISH it were a matter of some personal sensitivity - and
> > > you may continue to wish. But this is really flogging a dead horse.
> >
> > Then don't post! :-)
>
> Why, is it upsetting your little pitty party?
The reason why is that if you're truly indifferent, then you needn't
post and debate the issue vigorously. It takes two to tango.
You're using the teenage girl tactic of pretending to be indifferent
and uncaring in the hopes of appearing confident. Sorry, but it
doesn't work for them and it doesn't work for you.
"Whatever..."
> > Just as you argue that men needn't marry below, you needn't post
> > if you truly are indifferent and don't care to discuss the issue.
> > Truly indifferent people also don't "urge" others to do things.
>
> Please don't tell me how to amuse myself over my morning coffee.
>
> > > > > A woman has as much to lose as a man does in marriage.
> > > >
> > > > You're either dishonest or incredibly naive. I'll guess a little
> > > > of both.
> > >
> > > How so? Marriage limits one's freedom, whether they are men or women.
> > > It entangles finances, involves those nasty little creatures called
> > > "children", I could go on and on about the encumbering complications.
> >
> > You were a child once. Feminism reminds me of the shaker religion
> > except that feminists produce photos of vacations they've taken
> > due to their lifestyle while the shakers produced spartan furniture.
>
> Maybe my job is my Shaker furniture? And, of course, the Shakers were
> celibate. I'm not.
Theoretically, the shakers would still be around if they could have
taken advantage of artificial ensemination.
But in answer to your question, do you really mean that? Is your job
really your goal? If you won the lottery, would you continue to work?
I'm not asking this as part of the debate but just curious. Some
people enjoy their job but view it as a means to an end.
> > > > > Career obsessed men are no better than career obsessed women at
> > > > > marriage so the point of the original Forbes article is mute at best.
> > > >
> > > > There is a difference in that career obsessed men produce
> > > > (and share) income to enable women to fulfill their sexist
> > > > needs and desires.
> > >
> > > Then don't marry! It's as simple as that. If you personally feel that
> > > marriage is a major imposition upon you - don't marry! Then you are
> > > free not to participate in someone's alleged "sexist desires."
> >
> > Non sequitur. We were discussing the comparitive negative impacts
> > of marriage upon men and women and what career men and women
> > differently bring (or not bring) to the table.
>
> No - this thread started as a generalized whine about "career" women
> and their alleged poor prospects as wives.
But each PARAGRAPH says something different. :-)
You had claimed that career men and women were equivalent and I was
disputing that argument.
> Andrea Yates was a "good Christian" stay-at-home mom. Her "career" was
> farting out one little sprog after another for Jesus. And the "good
> Christian" wife of a minister in (Alabama?) that murdered her husband -
> what was her "career"?
Agreed. Many non-career women aren't good bets either. Many men even
considered career women because, as you show, they often have many
likable masculine traits: They are
not sexually prudish, generate an income, and can discuss interesting
things from work.
At the same time, you show many of the drawbacks: You brag about your
income and your independence which is a perfect example of how such
women often are poor marriage material. You even have a condescending
view of marriage. You might shag a boyfriend for a while but if you
want to have kids later or get accidentally preggers, he's stuck with
someone whose just going to view him as an ATM for a bastard baby.
Your income probably is also less helpful at improving the standard of
living for your boyfriend (at best, you might foot your own bill from
time to time) but that's probably it.
Generally speaking, women aren't that much different than they were
during the 50's despite the hype about them coming a long way and how
men haven't kept up, blah blah blah. They still are largely income
consumers in relationships and any progress they've made (due not to
them "fighting" for it but rather due to generous handholding social
programs) is offset by other needs they have in relationships.
> > > > > Secondly, the guy who has been posting this article all over usenet
> > > > > probably couldn't get a wife if they were selling them at WalMart.
> > > > > He's just another bitter loser throwing his dodo at women online.
> > > >
> > > > Plenty of women are now online. What used to be a mark of
> > > > cain is now something that normal, even hip people engage in.
> > >
> > > And what is this that you speak of? What "hip" people are doing what?
> >
> > I'm talking about people who use dating sites and chat rooms to
> > meet people.
>
> Oh...is that "hip?" I really don't know, I don't visit chat rooms or do
> online dating.
>
> > > > Anita "coke can" Hill is to thank for making the workplace
> > > > a taboo for women to expect men to pick them up.
> > >
> > > Trust me, a workplace free of sexual harrassment is a blessing. I'm not
> > > hypersensitive about it - but it is a relief not to have to deal with
> > > it.
> >
> > But the rules require all men to assume that you're hypersensitive.
>
> The men that I work with know that I am not hypersensitive. They learn
> which women are good sports and which are not and make the necessary
> adjustments.
Perhaps I should have phrased that: They have to assume that you're
hypersensitive until, after extensive observation and caution, they
learn that you're not.
> > Consequently, to follow the rules, businessmen must always keep in
> > the back of their mind at all times that they're dealing with you.
>
> Again, very hyperbolic.
How? Even after they learned that you're not hypersensitive, they
still have to keep in the back of their mind that you're the exception
and even then, evaluate each remark to make sure they don't go over the
line.
With men, it's understood on the other hand that they might step over
the line and the person can apologize and that's it. No harm, no foul.
> > So it's ironic that in our modern times that we're perhaps more
> > sexist than ever in how we evaluate people in the workplace.
>
> Now THAT is a non sequitur.
How is this a non-sequitur? We were discussing a sub-topic of sexual
harassment legislation and it's benefits and drawbacks.
> > > > Since professional women spend a lot of their time at work,
> > > > they often don't have any alternative in finding a man
> > > > to produce the income they need to pay for childcare
> > > > other than going online.
> > >
> > > You seem to be somewhat behind the times - I produce my own income. I
> > > don't need anyone elses. I have no children and have no plans on
> > > "spawning" either.
> >
> > This isn't all about you.
>
> Yes, but I am a "professional woman" and therefore the demographic
> group in subject here.
You're a demographic group. I suppose that must make sex for your
boyfriend especially intense. :-)
> And I know other single professional women and
> we network our opinions.
Wow! What's the favorite color of single professional women? :-)
> I also know professional married women - so you can't marginalize my
> knowledge of the subject without beggering your own insights.
You decided to generalize professional women as yourself, not me.
> Sorry sweety - you don't get to speak for us.
>
> Cat
I wasn't aware that they had nominated you as their official
spokeswoman
either. :-)
regards,
PolishKnight
Tobin
Heidi Graw wrote:
> ><rdu...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> >news:1157410704.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >>Hyerdahl wrote:
> >> Here's the 'rub', tho, Ralph. If a woman wants a clean house and when
> >> you meet her, she HAS a clean house :-) the likilihood that SHE wants
> >> a clean house is very high. Just because she will have a family in the
> >> the case, someone has to clean the house and if you aren't doing your
>
> > rdubose wrote:
> > How can this extremely difficult problem ever be solved?? I know!
> > How about use a small part of your resources to HIRE A FUCKING MAID.
>
> Exactly, especially if both husband and wife are earning half-decent money,
> which in most cases they are. As for those other small chores like cooking
> dinner and stacking the dishes into the dishwasher and/or throwing dirty
> laundry into the washing machine, if hubby just chooses to sit in front of
> the TV instead of helping out, I would suggest the wife sit right next to
> him whenever he's sitting down. If he asks what's for dinner, while he's
> sitting around on his ass, she should just say, "It's in the fridge...help
> yourself!" And if he complains he's got no clean laundry, the wife should
> just shrug her shoulders and point to the laundry machine..."If you want
> clean clothes, the machine's over there!" There is absolutely no reason to
> be arguing about housework and who does more or less. If both hubby and
> wife are both working full-time outside the house, he could be cooking
> dinner, while she's out there changing the oil in the car. ;-)
>
> laziness. She'd be busy folding laundry while he was outside giving her car
> a tune-up! Sheez!
>
> > wanton sexual escapades.
> > Of course, enacting this plan would deprive the female of total
> > victim status.
>
> Yes, heard the bitching and griping, and found that it was completely and
> utterly unwarranted. Needless to say, sis-in-law wasn't too happy when I
> pointed out all the things her hubby was busy doing outside, while she was
> "toiling" around throwing dirty laundry into the machine. She also had a
> cleaning lady who'd come in once a week to give the house a thorough
> scrubbing.
>
> > sure. The sweet nectar of helpless-female-victomhood is more precious
> > to you than any other substance on earth, real or imaginary.
> > But not all women have your sense of priorities. Shit, how hard is
> > it to clean a house anyway?
>
> It's not that hard. I just find it extremely boring. I *hate* doing
> housework! However, I do it because I happen to like a clean and orderly
> house. I do it more for myself than for anyone else. In the meantime,
> hubby is the one who takes care of the yard, the vehicles and whatever
> maintance stuff that needs to be done. I don't ask him to help out with
> housework because he already does all sorts of other stuff which is of
> *mutual* benefit. He also likes a tidy house. So, between the two of us,
> we feel were doing o.k...we don't argue about who does more or less. We
> just do what needs to be done.
Your position makes way too much sense. It'll never sell around
here.
But it should.
pandora
<catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157634767.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> amused onlooker wrote:
>
> > And that's because marriage is a VERY sweet deal for women in the west
at
> > this time. If hubby deserts her, she gets everything. If she files for
> > divorce because let's say "he was emotionally cold" or some such shite
then
> > she still gets nearly everything. Feminists and women in general do not
want
> > this apple cart upset.
>
> This is typical hyperbole of the sort that is common over in soc.men.
> Again - maybe you should just not marry.
Indeed. A solution for those who feel this way and yet.......they don't
seem willing to take it, except for a very few and they do so with
resentment. It's like the kid who used to try to end the soccer game by
stating, "I'm taking my ball and going home." Our solution to the problem?
We bought a ball of our own. No more problem. His leaving was no loss to
us.
> I know you're looking for a way to blame all of this on "feminists" and
> turn yourselves into victims - but there are too many other dynamics in
> play - including economic demands and a greater degree of choices
> available to both men and women.
Correct. Marriage just isn't the ONLY way out for women any longer AND
isn't the only way a guy can get a house cleaned and a decent meal. It
isn't even the only way a guy can be a father as many women are quite happy
to have his kid but not marry. Win-win? I would think so.
> > > Even though women commentators have in the past said
> > > essentially the same thing.
> >
> > Ah but you see that was different. When women screamed that they were
> > oppressed by marriage they thought that men were having all the fun
because
> > they had jobs in factories and other such boring, tedious and dangerous
> > occupations. Now they are learning that work is crap for most people.
>
> Maybe your work is crap, but you can't make such a sweeping
> generalization and hope to have a shred of credibility.
Heh. However, some still do so anyway. Many people actually have *jobs*
they enjoy even if they don't consider it a *career*. If they don't enjoy
their jobs, they simply retrain and move on.
> And it appears that you are "history challenged" if you believe that
> women have only recently entered the workforce.
Indeed. Women have always been a good part of the workforce. They just
weren't in ALL areas of the workplace as they are now. That makes some guys
rather upset as they fear the competition. Why is anyone's guess.
> > Most
> > people end up in "jobs" not "careers". I mean with all of todays home
> > entertainment available lots of people both male and female would rather
> > find someone to allow them to stay at home. Plus with all this modern
> > technology it's easy to keep a home in good order these days without
working
> > very hard.
>
> Again - you are speaking mainly of yourself. Maybe YOU want to stay
> home and play video games but that sounds like a living death to me.
To me as well. I was a sahm for several years when our kids were small but
I was kept quite busy with 3 little ones. As well, I grew all our own
vegetables and fruits and canned/froze everything. It was very time
consuming but at least nothing went to waste. Yeah, I was a hippie mom.
:-)
> > Of course another reason feminists screamed oppression about marriage
was
> > they thought they held the upper hand and all men needed a wife. Thats
> > turned out to be untrue. Hence the large amounts of men not wanting to
get
> > married in the west. And befor some harpy say's "we dont need you" then
why
> > are books like Debbie Maken's "Getting Serious About Getting Married"
> > appearing.
>
> Because SOME women (especially the ones coming from certain ethnic
> groups) still feel they have to get married. As some men. Otherwise
> they wouldn't be so obsessed with this issue online.
I tend to agree with you there. There is also running rampant in our
culture, the concern by some of being/living alone. I don't know why really
as it is quite possible to be alone but not lonely. Perhaps some just
haven't learned how to do this. So, for such as these, ANY port in a storm
is acceptable, even if they aren't really compatible.
> > These books blame men for not wanting to commit when really it's
> > the women who are making themselves unmarketable in the marriage game.
They
> > wont admit this though.
>
> What is marketable, what "unmarketable?"
Indeed. It's very personal criteria. And if you cannot find someone who is
compatible with you, then you either keep looking or stop looking. It's a
personal choice. And if all the women (or men) one meets, seem to not be
compatible with you, then what the heck, you just do without.
> A bitter and resentful man who blame women (via the scapegoat of the
> feminist) has pretty much zero market value.
There is that as well. And even those men who seemingly despise feminists
are quite happy to have their wives go to work to support the family if they
themselves are ill or disabled. If then, why not at other times?
> > > The writer apparently hit a nerve dead-on, and the reaction he
> > > provoked is to me an indication that such an article was spot-on
>
> Oh bullshit! Your lot keeps bringing this up and keeps getting their
> heads handed to them.
I think the "nerve* is the fact that their premise is so stupid. Why would
anyone believe that ALL women want one thing when not ALL men want one
thing? We are all different and want different things. I, for one, am
very glad that we live in a society wherein choices are allowed.
> > And hopefully the debate on the Forbe forums will be seen by lots of
wealthy
> > men and make them realize that the concept of western marriage has
become an
> > utter fucking joke.
> >
> > As Paul McCartney is learning.
>
> How old was Paul McCartney? How old his wife? The age difference was
> simply too great.
Indeed. Most older men who wish to run around with younger women are smart
enough to NOT marry them. They might enjoy the youthfulness of their partner
BUT they aren't about to jump into something like that. If they're not
smart enough, well, they get what they paid for.
Marg
> Cat
>
pandora
<catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157636111....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I would state rather that marriage works fine for *some* people. I'm not
sure about the many. However, having said that, I have to admit that it has
worked just fine for me and mine. I've been married now for 41 years and
we're still best friends and loving partners. I wouldn't have it any other
way. I cannot imagine my life without him nor he without me.
The divorce statistics often lamented by women-bashers
> online ignores that more marriages succeed than fail.
Indeed they do. Although not ALL those marriages that are ongoing are
really and truly happy ones. Many are though.
> And if you consider the pressures that married life is under (not by
> feminists) then those success are, indeed, notable.
I think so but in the end, it really doesn't (and shouldn't), matter to
anyone but the married couple. That's my personal feeling about it at any
rate. I don't particularly care what percentage of the population is
married or stays married or never marries. I come from a very strange
background; my grandmother divorced my grandfather in 1930. Rather unusual
to say the least. She never spoke of him ever again and I only got a
picture of him a few years ago. My parents divorced when I was 19. They
stayed together for the sake of the *children*. Hell, I would have
preferred they had split long before. My aunt was married 7 times. She
should have quit long before that I thought. Strangely enough, my brother
and I have stayed married to our first spouses even though all our cousins
have been divorced at least once.
Marg
> Cat
>
catbr...@yahoo.com
DairyQueenOfDeath wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 06:12:47 -0700, catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > amused onlooker wrote:
> >
> >> And that's because marriage is a VERY sweet deal for women in the west at
> >> this time. If hubby deserts her, she gets everything. If she files for
> >> divorce because let's say "he was emotionally cold" or some such shite then
> >> she still gets nearly everything. Feminists and women in general do not want
> >> this apple cart upset.
> >
> > This is typical hyperbole of the sort that is common over in soc.men.
>
>
> And your objection is typical of the socialist feminists who troll and
> endlessly bicker in a place that you claim to hate.
I read and post in soc.women you boob.
> Divorce is the best victim card women can play. They get it all, usually.
> Especially if they are a mother. Mothers are the best victims. Just ask
> Hillary Clinton. You probably worship her.
It's hard to respond to someone as idiotic as you. What's so bad about
Hillary Clinton? She's a moderate. As for the rest of your drivel about
mothers, I think you're remembering the old cow that dropped you in the
corn patch.
> > Again - maybe you should just not marry.
>
>
> Bully for you Einstein!!!! Isnt that what he's saying all along?
"He" who?
> > I know you're looking for a way to blame all of this on "feminists" and
> > turn yourselves into victims -
> Hahaha! So you admit it, that's what feminists do? Play victim?
You failed reading comprehension again.
Cat
Andre Lieven
> DairyQueenOfDeath wrote:
>> On 7 Sep 2006 06:12:47 -0700, catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > amused onlooker wrote:
>> >
>> >> And that's because marriage is a VERY sweet deal for women in the west at
>> >> this time. If hubby deserts her, she gets everything. If she files for
>> >> divorce because let's say "he was emotionally cold" or some such shite then
>> >> she still gets nearly everything. Feminists and women in general do not want
>> >> this apple cart upset.
>> >
>> > This is typical hyperbole of the sort that is common over in soc.men.
>>
>> And your objection is typical of the socialist feminists who troll and
>> endlessly bicker in a place that you claim to hate.
>
> I read and post in soc.women you boob.
Claims the lying sexist whipped idiot who posted THIS ONLY in soc.men.
So, you wish people to believe that you post posts ONLY in a newsgroup that
you DON'T read ? Fascinating... Insane, and full of cowshit, but still
fascinating...
>> Divorce is the best victim card women can play. They get it all, usually.
>> Especially if they are a mother. Mothers are the best victims. Just ask
>> Hillary Clinton. You probably worship her.
>
> It's hard to respond to someone as idiotic as you. What's so bad about
> Hillary Clinton? She's a moderate.
A " moderate " man hater. While shilling for women ONLY programs, what
positve for men programs has she stodd up in favour of ?
Exactly; none. QED.
> As for the rest of your drivel about
> mothers, I think you're remembering the old cow that dropped you in the
> corn patch.
Ad hominem, the last refuge of the whipped WomenFirster Sexist scoundrel.
>> > Again - maybe you should just not marry.
>>
>> Bully for you Einstein!!!! Isnt that what he's saying all along?
>
> "He" who?
>
>> > I know you're looking for a way to blame all of this on "feminists" and
>> > turn yourselves into victims -
>
>> Hahaha! So you admit it, that's what feminists do? Play victim?
>
> You failed reading comprehension again.
<Moronic Projection>
Andre
DairyQueenOfDeath
> DairyQueenOfDeath wrote:
>> On 7 Sep 2006 06:12:47 -0700, catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> amused onlooker wrote:
>>>
>>>> And that's because marriage is a VERY sweet deal for women in the west at
>>>> this time. If hubby deserts her, she gets everything. If she files for
>>>> divorce because let's say "he was emotionally cold" or some such shite then
>>>> she still gets nearly everything. Feminists and women in general do not want
>>>> this apple cart upset.
>>>
>>> This is typical hyperbole of the sort that is common over in soc.men.
>>
>>
>> And your objection is typical of the socialist feminists who troll and
>> endlessly bicker in a place that you claim to hate.
>
> I read and post in soc.women you boob.
it came over in soc.men, you boob. Either A) it was crossposted and you
didnt notice, which is possible, or B) you're a fucking liar and you did
post it to soc.men
Of course, replying to your post, did not show soc.women in the response
section at all. AND in my reply header, soc.women isnt showing up, so if
you see this, then somehow our messages are going back and forth between
the two groups without either of us being aware they're crossposted
Still, I have seen you in here before Catbriar.
>
>> Divorce is the best victim card women can play. They get it all, usually.
>> Especially if they are a mother. Mothers are the best victims. Just ask
>> Hillary Clinton. You probably worship her.
>
> It's hard to respond to someone as idiotic as you. What's so bad about
> Hillary Clinton?
I knew you licked her balls. What can you say to someone who once said "the
real victims in war are women?" She's biased beyond belief. I'd never vote
for that person in a million years. She's about as moderate as Rush
Limbaugh. You're a socialist retard.
>
>>> Again - maybe you should just not marry.
>>
>>
>> Bully for you Einstein!!!! Isnt that what he's saying all along?
>
> "He" who?
the guy you responded to who said this:
"And hopefully the debate on the Forbe forums will be seen by lots of
wealthy men and make them realize that the concept of western marriage has
become an utter fucking joke."
who's the idiot now? that would be YOU.
DairyQueenOfDeath
>>
>> This is typical hyperbole of the sort that is common over in soc.men.
>> Again - maybe you should just not marry.
>
> Indeed. A solution for those who feel this way and yet.......they don't
> seem willing to take it, except for a very few and they do so with
> resentment.
I'm not seeing this in here. I see quite a lot of guys in soc.men saying
they DONT want to get married. Where are all the men in the soc.men
newsgroup begging to get married to women?
Andre Lieven
More to the point, wheres the men begging to be allowed to marry
*Feminists* ?
Exactly. But, WomenFirster Bigots like Mange cannot face that fact,
that Feminists are SO undesirable as spouses, that men have learned
to avoid them.
Google " marriage strike ", and note that in California, a social
bell weather US state, marriages drpped some 24% between 2002 and
2004.
A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
Thing.
Andre
catbr...@yahoo.com
(Areas already covered & pointless stuff removed.)
> You're using the teenage girl
Stupid ad hominum deleted...
> > Maybe my job is my Shaker furniture? And, of course, the Shakers were
> > celibate. I'm not.
>
> Theoretically, the shakers would still be around if they could have
> taken advantage of artificial ensemination.
What?
> But in answer to your question, do you really mean that? Is your job
> really your goal? If you won the lottery, would you continue to work?
I was "dragged up Lutrin" as we say in Minnesota and though I have
wandered far, some of those values endure; hard work, stoicism, dry
sense of humor, and pragmatism.
I've met the idle rich - I'll pass on that. I can't imagine not working
at something.
> I'm not asking this as part of the debate but just curious. Some
> people enjoy their job but view it as a means to an end.
What "end", death?
> You had claimed that career men and women were equivalent and I was
> disputing that argument.
I still maintain that to be so.
> > Andrea Yates was a "good Christian" stay-at-home mom. Her "career" was
> > farting out one little sprog after another for Jesus. And the "good
> > Christian" wife of a minister in (Alabama?) that murdered her husband -
> > what was her "career"?
>
> Agreed. Many non-career women aren't good bets either. Many men even
> considered career women because, as you show, they often have many
> likable masculine traits: They are
> not sexually prudish, generate an income, and can discuss interesting
> things from work.
And you consider those "masculine" traits?
> At the same time, you show many of the drawbacks: You brag about your
> income
No, I wasn't bragging. I was stating a fact. I do not need anyone
else's income to supplement my own.
> and your independence which is a perfect example of how such
> women often are poor marriage material.
So you feel "independence" is bad? Does that apply to men too?
> You even have a condescending
> view of marriage.
I don't mind if others get married...not at all.
> You might shag a boyfriend for a while but if you
> want to have kids later
I will not want kids later.
> or get accidentally preggers,
Abortion.
> he's stuck with
> someone whose just going to view him as an ATM for a bastard baby.
Non sequitur.
> Your income probably is also less helpful at improving the standard of
> living for your boyfriend
That's a rather ridiculous statement, considering that I make enough to
pay my own way in everything.
> (at best, you might foot your own bill from
> time to time) but that's probably it.
I do all the time.
> Generally speaking, women aren't that much different than they were
> during the 50's despite the hype about them coming a long way and how
> men haven't kept up, blah blah blah.
Blah, blah, blah...
> They still are largely income
> consumers in relationships and any progress they've made (due not to
> them "fighting" for it but rather due to generous handholding social
> programs) is offset by other needs they have in relationships.
Crap! Typical sour grapes from the soc.men cult group. No social
program got me my job. I got it because I was better than the other
applicants.
> Perhaps I should have phrased that: They have to assume that you're
> hypersensitive until, after extensive observation and caution, they
> learn that you're not.
I was once accused (by a group of other women) of "helping to enable
the objectification of women" due to my manner of dress and behavior.
But I was defended by my boss - who, as it turns out, was also a woman.
I have many male friends.
> How? Even after they learned that you're not hypersensitive, they
> still have to keep in the back of their mind that you're the exception
> and even then, evaluate each remark to make sure they don't go over the
> line.
The poor boys. Fortunately, most all the men I work with are smart and
professional.
> With men, it's understood on the other hand that they might step over
> the line and the person can apologize and that's it. No harm, no foul.
You really overblow this whole thing. Maybe you don't actually work
with many women. I simply haven't found this to be generally so.
> > > So it's ironic that in our modern times that we're perhaps more
> > > sexist than ever in how we evaluate people in the workplace.
> >
> > Now THAT is a non sequitur.
>
> How is this a non-sequitur? We were discussing a sub-topic of sexual
> harassment legislation and it's benefits and drawbacks.
How? Because the environment is far less sexist than it was once.
> > Yes, but I am a "professional woman" and therefore the demographic
> > group in subject here.
>
> You're a demographic group. I suppose that must make sex for your
> boyfriend especially intense. :-)
The most "intense" he's ever had.
> > And I know other single professional women and
> > we network our opinions.
>
> Wow! What's the favorite color of single professional women? :-)
Mine is black.
> > I also know professional married women - so you can't marginalize my
> > knowledge of the subject without beggering your own insights.
>
> You decided to generalize professional women as yourself, not me.
This whole thread is a vast generalization.
> > Sorry sweety - you don't get to speak for us.
> >
> > Cat
>
> I wasn't aware that they had nominated you as their official
> spokeswoman
> either. :-)
>
> regards,
> PolishKnight
Yes, they did - I have the tabulated votes right here.
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
Andre Lieven wrote:
> Google " marriage strike ", and note that in California, a social
> bell weather US state, marriages drpped some 24% between 2002 and
> 2004.
>
> A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
> Thing.
>
> Andre
Andre is one of those enduring idiots -
he naturally assumes that the decline in marriage is due to some
"marriage strike", ignoring the fact that many of those who are not
interested in marriage are women, that the marriage age demographics
have shifted, and that people are postponing both marriage and child
bearing due to economic concerns.
And, of course, if the whackjobs in soc.men go on a marriage strike,
women everywhere will thank them.
Cat
pandora
"DairyQueenOfDeath" <fuhgedd...@nowaynohow.com> wrote in message
news:1r9k60jc61ui2.1eqns5pehmsln$.dlg@40tude.net...
Never said there were any. Please learn to read. Thanks.
marg
pandora
<catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157751526.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> > Google " marriage strike ", and note that in California, a social
> > bell weather US state, marriages drpped some 24% between 2002 and
> > 2004.
> >
> > A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
> > Thing.
> >
> > Andre
>
> Andre is one of those enduring idiots -
> he naturally assumes that the decline in marriage is due to some
> "marriage strike",
And yet, Andre is one of those who has been involved in one marriage, then
divorced and about to embark on a second marriage. Sounds like he doesn't
live what he believes.
ignoring the fact that many of those who are not
> interested in marriage are women, that the marriage age demographics
> have shifted, and that people are postponing both marriage and child
> bearing due to economic concerns.
I can honestly state that I don't really believe that marriage is a
necessity or even a desireable situation in today's world. It is quite
simply, irrelevant. I got married in 1965 because my parents wouldn't have
allowed me to move 3,000 miles away without marriage. I was too naive to
realize they couldn't really have stopped me. Our being married isn't why
we're still together. We're still together because we want to be.
> And, of course, if the whackjobs in soc.men go on a marriage strike,
> women everywhere will thank them.
Well, there is that. However, many of them have already been married at
*least* once. That's why they have such anger and bitterness against both
marriage and women. They blame their failures on women, marriage in
general, and the rules pertaining to divorce when in reality, they should be
blaming themselves and their wives for the bad choices they made. Human
failings, actually, and ones they should forgive themselves (and their
wives) for and get on with their lives.
Marg
> Cat
>
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> Google " marriage strike ", and note that in California, a social
>> bell weather US state, marriages drpped some 24% between 2002 and
>> 2004.
>>
>> A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
>> Thing.
>>
>> Andre
>
> Andre is one of those enduring idiots -
No proof ever offered ? Self serving fact free cowshit ad hom claim fails.
> he naturally assumes that the decline in marriage is due to some
> "marriage strike", ignoring the fact that many of those who are not
> interested in marriage are women,
<laughs> Yes, thats why its WOMEN who write screed after screed decrying
this lack of men to marry them....
> that the marriage age demographics
> have shifted, and that people are postponing both marriage and child
> bearing due to economic concerns.
And: No proof ever offered ? Cowshit MSdirection fact free claim...
still fails.
> And, of course, if the whackjobs in soc.men go on a marriage strike,
> women everywhere will thank them.
Ad hominem, the last refuge of the whipped WomenFirster Bigot.
Thanks for continuing to prove that not only is Feminism a mental
disease, but that it causes the condition of raging envy at it's
sufferers betters.
<laughs>
Andre
catbr...@yahoo.com
pandora wrote:
> <catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157751526.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >
> > > Google " marriage strike ", and note that in California, a social
> > > bell weather US state, marriages drpped some 24% between 2002 and
> > > 2004.
> > >
> > > A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
> > > Thing.
> > >
> > > Andre
> >
> > Andre is one of those enduring idiots -
> > he naturally assumes that the decline in marriage is due to some
> > "marriage strike",
>
> And yet, Andre is one of those who has been involved in one marriage, then
> divorced and about to embark on a second marriage. Sounds like he doesn't
> live what he believes.
I feel very sorry for whoever that moron is going to marry. He seems
like a juvenile to me. And, of course, there is no organized "marriage
strike", that's a fiction concocted in the bowels of soc.men.
> > ignoring the fact that many of those who are not
> > interested in marriage are women, that the marriage age demographics
> > have shifted, and that people are postponing both marriage and child
> > bearing due to economic concerns.
>
> I can honestly state that I don't really believe that marriage is a
> necessity or even a desireable situation in today's world. It is quite
> simply, irrelevant. I got married in 1965 because my parents wouldn't have
> allowed me to move 3,000 miles away without marriage. I was too naive to
> realize they couldn't really have stopped me. Our being married isn't why
> we're still together. We're still together because we want to be.
Exactly! These days, an antiquated ceremony isn't going to keep people
together who are no longer compatible.
> > And, of course, if the whackjobs in soc.men go on a marriage strike,
> > women everywhere will thank them.
>
> Well, there is that. However, many of them have already been married at
> *least* once. That's why they have such anger and bitterness against both
> marriage and women. They blame their failures on women, marriage in
> general, and the rules pertaining to divorce when in reality, they should be
> blaming themselves and their wives for the bad choices they made. Human
> failings, actually, and ones they should forgive themselves (and their
> wives) for and get on with their lives.
>
> Marg
They certainly waste a lot of time in anger and resentment. And that's
time they will never get back either.
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
Andre Lieven wrote:
> > Andre is one of those enduring idiots -
>
> No proof ever offered ?
Every one of your pre-adolescent tirades proves my point.
Cat
Hyerdahl
catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> > Google " marriage strike ", and note that in California, a social
> > bell weather US state, marriages drpped some 24% between 2002 and
> > 2004.
> >
> > A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
> > Thing.
> >
> > Andre
>
> Andre is one of those enduring idiots -
> he naturally assumes that the decline in marriage is due to some
> "marriage strike", ignoring the fact that many of those who are not
> interested in marriage are women, that the marriage age demographics
> have shifted, and that people are postponing both marriage and child
> bearing due to economic concerns.
Indeed.
>
> And, of course, if the whackjobs in soc.men go on a marriage strike,
> women everywhere will thank them.
>
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hal....le....lu....jah! Booboobedo!
> Cat
PolishKnight
catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> PolishKnight wrote:
> > catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > PolishKnight wrote:
>
> (Areas already covered & pointless stuff removed.)
>
> > You're using the teenage girl
>
> Stupid ad hominum deleted...
>
> > > Maybe my job is my Shaker furniture? And, of course, the Shakers were
> > > celibate. I'm not.
> >
> > Theoretically, the shakers would still be around if they could have
> > taken advantage of artificial ensemination.
>
> What?
The shakers didn't have sex so they relied upon adoption to raise future
members of their faith. I was saying that if they had a non-sexual way
to reproduce they might still be around.
> > But in answer to your question, do you really mean that? Is your job
> > really your goal? If you won the lottery, would you continue to work?
>
> I was "dragged up Lutrin" as we say in Minnesota and though I have
> wandered far, some of those values endure; hard work, stoicism, dry
> sense of humor, and pragmatism.
> I've met the idle rich - I'll pass on that. I can't imagine not working
> at something.
>
> > I'm not asking this as part of the debate but just curious. Some
> > people enjoy their job but view it as a means to an end.
>
> What "end", death?
In the long run, sure. That's not bad or anything: Life is a terminal
disease, after all.
> > You had claimed that career men and women were equivalent and I was
> > disputing that argument.
>
> I still maintain that to be so.
You're free to "maintain" anything you like. I would like to hear your
supportive arguments for your claims if for curiosity's sake.
> > > Andrea Yates was a "good Christian" stay-at-home mom. Her "career" was
> > > farting out one little sprog after another for Jesus. And the "good
> > > Christian" wife of a minister in (Alabama?) that murdered her husband -
> > > what was her "career"?
> >
> > Agreed. Many non-career women aren't good bets either. Many men even
> > considered career women because, as you show, they often have many
> > likable masculine traits: They are
> > not sexually prudish, generate an income, and can discuss interesting
> > things from work.
>
> And you consider those "masculine" traits?
Generally, men are more sexually promiscuous than women. Sexual
harassment laws exist almost entirely to protect women. You've just
stated so yourself that you're relieved to be free of sexual advances
from men in the workplace. Many men would happily PAY to enjoy such
attention on the other hand.
Next, there's generation of income. Women have a reputation for
equating income generation with masculinity and vice-versa: Men are more
willing to overlook a woman not having an income if she provides sexual
favors.
Both of the above observations are common knowledge. You either live on
Mars or you're pulling our leg. (In a non-sexual way, of course :-)
> > At the same time, you show many of the drawbacks: You brag about your
> > income
>
> No, I wasn't bragging. I was stating a fact. I do not need anyone
> else's income to supplement my own.
People who brag often are stating facts too.
> > and your independence which is a perfect example of how such
> > women often are poor marriage material.
>
> So you feel "independence" is bad? Does that apply to men too?
I didn't say it was "bad". Just bad for a certain role which you don't
appear interested in anyway, yes?
> > You even have a condescending
> > view of marriage.
>
> I don't mind if others get married...not at all.
I was talking about your view of marriage in general, not how you view
others doing it.
> > You might shag a boyfriend for a while but if you
> > want to have kids later
>
> I will not want kids later.
>
> > or get accidentally preggers,
>
> Abortion.
I had a similar conversation with a friend who was the on-off boyfriend
of a man-hating feminist (I don't see man-hating from you so far) but
she was also hardcore into feminist equality.
He told me the same thing: If she got preggers, she'd get an abortion no
problem. But when it happened, she didn't want to go through with it.
Maybe she realized she wanted a kid after all or she had this guy
trapped.
> > he's stuck with
> > someone whose just going to view him as an ATM for a bastard baby.
>
> Non sequitur.
It's still a risk that a woman doesn't face. An abortion or adoption as
unpleasant as these are for you, they're better than having someone hold
a child over your head for 18 years.
> > Your income probably is also less helpful at improving the standard of
> > living for your boyfriend
>
> That's a rather ridiculous statement, considering that I make enough to
> pay my own way in everything.
Hahahaha! I'm sorry, I'm not being condescending but really: welcome to
the world of men. Men don't have parades when they pay their own way.
The vast majority have been doing so for the past million years or so.
But that's the MIMINUM of what men have been doing. Where you are is a
nice START but men also live up to the expectation of paying for their
loved ones' way as well when needed. Your boyfriend lives with that
expectation while you can't even imagine it. Or maybe he doesn't.
That's one nice thing about some career women: If they aren't interested
in marriage, the guy can afford to be "cheap" and let her pay her way.
> > (at best, you might foot your own bill from
> > time to time) but that's probably it.
>
> I do all the time.
Let's go back to the shakers for a moment: They made pretty good
furniture (ok, I think it's just ok but some people go nuts for it)
Anyways, they made good furniture but didn't have families and kids.
But plenty of other quality furniture makers also had kids and families.
In other words, while your accomplishments are noble, men are able to
have "careers" _and_ support families (that include a spouse). Not just
"pay their own way" when they make a bundle of money. Most men could do
THAT. Hell, most men could pay their own way even if they didn't make a
lot of money.
Really, try having 99% of the other successful women start paying their
way (much less those that don't make a bundle of cash to make it any
easier) and then we'll talk about this women's equality being more than
just a flash in the pan!
> > Generally speaking, women aren't that much different than they were
> > during the 50's despite the hype about them coming a long way and how
> > men haven't kept up, blah blah blah.
>
> Blah, blah, blah...
>
> > They still are largely income
> > consumers in relationships and any progress they've made (due not to
> > them "fighting" for it but rather due to generous handholding social
> > programs) is offset by other needs they have in relationships.
>
> Crap! Typical sour grapes from the soc.men cult group.
Sounds like sour grapes about soc.men posting stuff you consider crap.
:-)
> No social
> program got me my job. I got it because I was better than the other
> applicants.
Perhaps you're right. I have seen otherwise though and so have other
men even if they're not soc.meners.
> > Perhaps I should have phrased that: They have to assume that you're
> > hypersensitive until, after extensive observation and caution, they
> > learn that you're not.
>
> I was once accused (by a group of other women) of "helping to enable
> the objectification of women" due to my manner of dress and behavior.
> But I was defended by my boss - who, as it turns out, was also a woman.
> I have many male friends.
So what? I have many male and female friends too.
Irregardless, you haven't disproved my point that the first perception
any man has of a woman in the workplace is that he has to walk on eggs
with her for a while and even then has to keep her gender in the back of
his mind.
Quite simply, until the white kid gloves come off, men, even those
you're friends with and disagree with us soc.meners, will think of women
in the workplace like kids riding bikes on training wheels.
> > How? Even after they learned that you're not hypersensitive, they
> > still have to keep in the back of their mind that you're the exception
> > and even then, evaluate each remark to make sure they don't go over the
> > line.
>
> The poor boys. Fortunately, most all the men I work with are smart and
> professional.
It's funny that you should make such a condescending remark when it's
the career women who are the ones in need to being treated as
hypersensitive unless proven otherwise.
> > With men, it's understood on the other hand that they might step over
> > the line and the person can apologize and that's it. No harm, no foul.
>
> You really overblow this whole thing. Maybe you don't actually work
> with many women. I simply haven't found this to be generally so.
This becomes similar to asking why there's a fence around the chicken
coop when all the foxes are supposedly gone. :-)
If the men you work with are professional and smart and the women aren't
hypersensitive, why do you feel relieved about rules that the men won't
act unprofessional and dumb and treat women as hypersensitive?
> > > > So it's ironic that in our modern times that we're perhaps more
> > > > sexist than ever in how we evaluate people in the workplace.
> > >
> > > Now THAT is a non sequitur.
> >
> > How is this a non-sequitur? We were discussing a sub-topic of sexual
> > harassment legislation and it's benefits and drawbacks.
>
> How? Because the environment is far less sexist than it was once.
If that's the case, then the sexual harassment laws can be eliminated
yes? Otherwise, this non-sexist environment is simply an effect of the
strict rules that require men to think of women by their gender at all
times which is a form of sexism but one that you don't mind since it's a
burden that falls upon the "poor" men.
> > > Yes, but I am a "professional woman" and therefore the demographic
> > > group in subject here.
> >
> > You're a demographic group. I suppose that must make sex for your
> > boyfriend especially intense. :-)
>
> The most "intense" he's ever had.
>
> > > And I know other single professional women and
> > > we network our opinions.
> >
> > Wow! What's the favorite color of single professional women? :-)
>
> Mine is black.
>
> > > I also know professional married women - so you can't marginalize my
> > > knowledge of the subject without beggering your own insights.
> >
> > You decided to generalize professional women as yourself, not me.
>
> This whole thread is a vast generalization.
>
> > > Sorry sweety - you don't get to speak for us.
> > >
> > > Cat
> >
> > I wasn't aware that they had nominated you as their official
> > spokeswoman
> > either. :-)
> >
> > regards,
> > PolishKnight
>
> Yes, they did - I have the tabulated votes right here.
>
> Cat
cheers,
PolishKnight
Hyerdahl
PolishKnight wrote:
> In article <1157749633.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Agreed. Many non-career women aren't good bets either. Many men even
> > > considered career women because, as you show, they often have many
> > > likable masculine traits: They are not sexually prudish, generate an income, and can discuss interesting things from work.
> >
> > And you consider those "masculine" traits?
I can't speak for Cat, but I don't consider them masculine traits, but
I believe that sexists do. :-) And I agree with Cat that many, many
men prefer women with those traits than women who are clingy and needy.
> Generally, men are more sexually promiscuous than women. Sexual
> harassment laws exist almost entirely to protect women. You've just
> stated so yourself that you're relieved to be free of sexual advances
> from men in the workplace. Many men would happily PAY to enjoy such
> attention on the other hand.
No they wouldn't. Sexual harassment isn't about actual sex; it's a way
for men to achieve superior status in the workplace. Men would not
like THAT to be turned on them. Mark has mistakenly viewed sexual
harassment with sexual opportunity.
>
> Next, there's generation of income. Women have a reputation for
> equating income generation with masculinity and vice-versa: Men are more
> willing to overlook a woman not having an income if she provides sexual
> favors.
Actually, what Mark means here is that women have intrinsic value to
men that men don't have to women. Women are capable of gestating and
delivering a family and also by providing REGULAR sex which men claim
to NEED. In this regard, men have NEEDS and women have ABILITIES which
men are willing to trade for goods.
> Both of the above observations are common knowledge. You either live on
> Mars or you're pulling our leg. (In a non-sexual way, of course :-)
>
> > > At the same time, you show many of the drawbacks: You brag about your
> > > income
> >
> > No, I wasn't bragging. I was stating a fact. I do not need anyone
> > else's income to supplement my own.
>
> People who brag often are stating facts too.
>
> > > and your independence which is a perfect example of how such
> > > women often are poor marriage material.
> >
Yup....that second income is really a turn off for most men. :-) And
a woman who has some degree of independence so that she is not a clingy
vine is sure a turn off. :-)
> > So you feel "independence" is bad? Does that apply to men too?
>
> I didn't say it was "bad". Just bad for a certain role which you don't
> appear interested in anyway, yes?
>
Mark is the one who is not good marriage material, which is why he had
to go to Russia for love.
> > > You even have a condescending
> > > view of marriage.
> >
> > I don't mind if others get married...not at all.
>
> I was talking about your view of marriage in general, not how you view
> others doing it.
>
> > > You might shag a boyfriend for a while but if you
> > > want to have kids later
> >
> > I will not want kids later.
> >
> > > or get accidentally preggers,
> >
> > Abortion.
>
> I had a similar conversation with a friend who was the on-off boyfriend
> of a man-hating feminist (I don't see man-hating from you so far) but
> she was also hardcore into feminist equality.
Here comes another hummdinger....from Mark.
>
> He told me the same thing: If she got preggers, she'd get an abortion no
> problem. But when it happened, she didn't want to go through with it.
> Maybe she realized she wanted a kid after all or she had this guy
> trapped.
>
> > > he's stuck with
> > > someone whose just going to view him as an ATM for a bastard baby.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
Indeed. Men are 100% responsible for the children they father; stop
trying to get women to mother you.
>
> It's still a risk that a woman doesn't face. An abortion or adoption as
> unpleasant as these are for you, they're better than having someone hold
> a child over your head for 18 years.
Men don't have to face that risk either if they're responsible.
>
> > > Your income probably is also less helpful at improving the standard of
> > > living for your boyfriend
> >
> > That's a rather ridiculous statement, considering that I make enough to
> > pay my own way in everything.
He doesn't want to hear that. :-)
>
> Hahahaha! I'm sorry, I'm not being condescending but really: welcome to
> the world of men. Men don't have parades when they pay their own way.
> The vast majority have been doing so for the past million years or so.
I don't see her parade, Mark....just the fact that she pays her own
way.
>
> But that's the MIMINUM of what men have been doing. Where you are is a
> nice START but men also live up to the expectation of paying for their
> loved ones' way as well when needed. Your boyfriend lives with that
> expectation while you can't even imagine it. Or maybe he doesn't.
> That's one nice thing about some career women: If they aren't interested
> in marriage, the guy can afford to be "cheap" and let her pay her way.
>
> > > (at best, you might foot your own bill from
> > > time to time) but that's probably it.
> >
> > I do all the time.
>
> Let's go back to the shakers for a moment: They made pretty good
> furniture (ok, I think it's just ok but some people go nuts for it)
> Anyways, they made good furniture but didn't have families and kids.
> But plenty of other quality furniture makers also had kids and families.
>
> In other words, while your accomplishments are noble, men are able to
> have "careers" _and_ support families (that include a spouse). Not just
> "pay their own way" when they make a bundle of money. Most men could do
> THAT. Hell, most men could pay their own way even if they didn't make a
> lot of money.
Mark, what are you 'on' about? Most women today could do the same
thing if that's what women wanted. IOW, single women with no children
pay their own way all the time if that's what they choose. The thing
that you don't like is having to PAY for your share of the bill.
That's not my problem. It's not Heidi's problem. It's your problem.
You simply don't have the skills women have to offer in the free
market. Stop blaming women for your situation.
>
> Really, try having 99% of the other successful women start paying their
> way (much less those that don't make a bundle of cash to make it any
> easier) and then we'll talk about this women's equality being more than
> just a flash in the pan!
Women don't have to treat you to dinner in order to exert their
equality, Mark. They may not have an equal interest in taking you to
dinner, while they do have an equal interest in making the kind of
money men traditionally made. So, what we have is free and independent
western women not having to settle for men like you. Win-win. You
seem to vainly imagine that women should have the same needs men have.
And, clearly, they don't.
>
>>
pandora
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:edtoo3$pou$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
Sounds like Andre is self describing, again.
Marg
> <laughs>
>
> Andre
>
pandora
<catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157811753.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> pandora wrote:
> > <catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1157751526.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > >
> > > > Google " marriage strike ", and note that in California, a social
> > > > bell weather US state, marriages drpped some 24% between 2002 and
> > > > 2004.
> > > >
> > > > A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
> > > > Thing.
> > > >
> > > > Andre
> > >
> > > Andre is one of those enduring idiots -
> > > he naturally assumes that the decline in marriage is due to some
> > > "marriage strike",
> >
> > And yet, Andre is one of those who has been involved in one marriage,
then
> > divorced and about to embark on a second marriage. Sounds like he
doesn't
> > live what he believes.
>
> I feel very sorry for whoever that moron is going to marry. He seems
> like a juvenile to me. And, of course, there is no organized "marriage
> strike", that's a fiction concocted in the bowels of soc.men.
Indeed, I agree to all points. The so-called "marriage strike" is an
imaginary hallucination.
> > > ignoring the fact that many of those who are not
> > > interested in marriage are women, that the marriage age demographics
> > > have shifted, and that people are postponing both marriage and child
> > > bearing due to economic concerns.
> >
> > I can honestly state that I don't really believe that marriage is a
> > necessity or even a desireable situation in today's world. It is quite
> > simply, irrelevant. I got married in 1965 because my parents wouldn't
have
> > allowed me to move 3,000 miles away without marriage. I was too naive
to
> > realize they couldn't really have stopped me. Our being married isn't
why
> > we're still together. We're still together because we want to be.
>
> Exactly! These days, an antiquated ceremony isn't going to keep people
> together who are no longer compatible.
Very true. And I've seen even the *most* extreme religious individuals
divorce so even their religion doesn't keep em married if they wish to be
apart. And rightly so, IMO. People should not be together if they no
longer want to be.
> > > And, of course, if the whackjobs in soc.men go on a marriage strike,
> > > women everywhere will thank them.
> >
> > Well, there is that. However, many of them have already been married at
> > *least* once. That's why they have such anger and bitterness against
both
> > marriage and women. They blame their failures on women, marriage in
> > general, and the rules pertaining to divorce when in reality, they
should be
> > blaming themselves and their wives for the bad choices they made. Human
> > failings, actually, and ones they should forgive themselves (and their
> > wives) for and get on with their lives.
> >
> > Marg
>
> They certainly waste a lot of time in anger and resentment. And that's
> time they will never get back either.
There is that. But then with some of these *losers* what else could they do
with their time?
Marg
> Cat
>
Ken Chaddock
> "Ken Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:2UJLg.10331$Hr1.4061@clgrps12...
>
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>>>It's not a matter of "guys insisting"; it's a matter of what kind of
>>>cleanliness society expects and who gets blamed if standards are not
>>>met. I know many, many career women who hire someone to come in once a
>>>week.
>>
>>Problem solved...and they both contributed equally since *all* the
>>income is matrimonial money right ;-)
> Indeed. Problem solved. However, it might not be especially if the
> individual was hired *because* one of the spouses wasn't willing to pull
> their weight with the housework. I know of many career couples who actually
> DO share the housework and childcare and yardcare and car care. Why?
> Because they a) cannot afford to pay someone else to do the work and b) feel
> that these things should be shared. Certainly they should be shared duties
> in order that one isn't left holding the bag and feeling they are playing
> servant to the other. So, one makes the meals and the other cleans up;
> nightly, not once in a while. One takes care of the cars and the other
> takes care of the yardwork. One dusts and vacuums, the other does the
> laundry.
I agree that there should be an equal "distribution" of labour but that
doesn't necessarily mean exactly the same number of hours spent by each.
In my home *I* actually do more of the cooking and laundry and dishes
than Laura...but that is *my* choice. I get home an hour and a half
before her so I prepare supper, clean up the day's dishes and do the
wash, as well as working at other "around the house" chores from the
"honey do" list. I do these things because if I don't we don't get as
much time to spend together. I'm fairly busy with volunteer work and
want to maximize our time together so, rather than sitting reading a
book or watching TV, I get that stuff out of the way to make time later.
The thing I object to is when either partner has an unrealistic
standard, whether it be frequency of vacuuming the house or washing the
car. In that case, I thing it should be up to the partner with the
unreasonable standard to either get over it or to personally make
whatever extra effort they feel is necessary and cannot agree that they
would have any credible grievance against a partner who refused to
accommodate what they feel is unnecessary...
> To me, it isn't about WHO does WHAT but that neither partner feels the other
> is being lazy. If someone feels that way, they should sit down and talk
> about it. Talk about what expectations they feel are reasonable and what
> aren't. And just how they are going to take care of things. Nothing should
> be left to chance or whoever can't stand the mess first.
I agree...but this has to happen with an open mind. I (personally)
think that quite a lot of this is women bowing to the unrealistic
"expectations" of family and friends...as I said in another post, we
have a small stone plaque in our kitchen that says:
"Our home, clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be happy"
If more women took that attitude they might find that their husbands,
who object to vacuuming every day after work and cleaning the whole
house on the weekend, wouldn't object to spending a couple of hours on
Sunday helping them clean house...and would also have the balls to tell
his mother to "piss off" when she comes for her "white glove" inspection ;-)
...Ken
pandora
Possibly. It depends on the kind of work and how often it has to be done.
Again, however, these duties need to be discussed and agreed to by the
participants or either it won't get done or one (or both) will feel used and
therefore unhappy.
> In my home *I* actually do more of the cooking and laundry and dishes
> than Laura...but that is *my* choice. I get home an hour and a half
> before her so I prepare supper, clean up the day's dishes and do the
> wash, as well as working at other "around the house" chores from the
> "honey do" list.
Good for you! I actually do most of the above myself as *I* have more time
to do them and even though my husband and I get home at the exact same time
(I drive him to and home from work), HE has spent the day teaching and *I*
have spent the day visiting family and friends and taking FUN classes.)
He's exhausted from teaching and I'm energized.
I do these things because if I don't we don't get as
> much time to spend together.
Sounds very reasonable to me. It all depends on whether or not the *couple*
wishes to spend any time together. Sounds as if it is important to you (as
it is to me and my husband). For example, he does NOT do any work on Friday
nights or Saturdays as those are OUR days together for doing whatever it is
WE decide to do. Sundays, I leave him alone as he needs to prepare lectures
for the next day as well as do scheduling for future terms. He's the Asst
Chair in his Department and that is one of his duties. If he doesn't have
any WORK to do, he reads or messes around in his study. I do the same in
mine or read or watch tv.
I'm fairly busy with volunteer work and
> want to maximize our time together so, rather than sitting reading a
> book or watching TV, I get that stuff out of the way to make time later.
Great! I certainly hope it is appreciated as I believe that making time for
each other is extremely important. Doing outside STUFF can be rewarding but
it doesn't keep one's bed warm. :-)
> The thing I object to is when either partner has an unrealistic
> standard, whether it be frequency of vacuuming the house or washing the
> car. In that case, I thing it should be up to the partner with the
> unreasonable standard to either get over it or to personally make
> whatever extra effort they feel is necessary and cannot agree that they
> would have any credible grievance against a partner who refused to
> accommodate what they feel is unnecessary...
I tend to agree that since there is NO common standard of cleanliness,
tidiness, etc, that these things should be discussed and agreed to by the
people involved. If one absolutely insists that the vacuuming be done every
other day, well that's the one who should do it, IMO. I HATED vacuuming and
it killed my back but with my dust allergies, it had to be done frequently.
I had my carpets ripped out and paid to have wood floors installed. Heaven!
And they only need to be dry mopped every few days (an easy job) and washed
every 4 months or so.
> > To me, it isn't about WHO does WHAT but that neither partner feels the
other
> > is being lazy. If someone feels that way, they should sit down and talk
> > about it. Talk about what expectations they feel are reasonable and
what
> > aren't. And just how they are going to take care of things. Nothing
should
> > be left to chance or whoever can't stand the mess first.
>
> I agree...but this has to happen with an open mind. I (personally)
> think that quite a lot of this is women bowing to the unrealistic
> "expectations" of family and friends...
That is also a possibility. And indeed it has been women who have bourne
the brunt of the nastiness of having an *untidy/unclean* home. Such
expectations are not only silly but unnecessary and (as has been discovered
recently), a truly *clean* house may even be a negative where children are
concerned. A bit dirty is preferable to a disinfected home for the health
of children.
as I said in another post, we
> have a small stone plaque in our kitchen that says:
> "Our home, clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be happy"
:-) I like that.
> If more women took that attitude they might find that their husbands,
> who object to vacuuming every day after work and cleaning the whole
> house on the weekend, wouldn't object to spending a couple of hours on
> Sunday helping them clean house...and would also have the balls to tell
> his mother to "piss off" when she comes for her "white glove" inspection
;-)
That would be a sight to see. :-) But yes, that would be preferable to
constant complaining by one or the other about who isn't doing what or
forcing one to do that which they feel is unnecessary.
Having said all that, I have to admit that I am a *putterer* where my house
is concerned. I simply cannot abide untidiness. I don't expect anyone else
to *tidy* things for me though. I make beds daily as I cannot abide a
*messy and untidy* bed. I straighten cushions and make sure that all dirty
dishes are IN the dishwasher and the counters are free of *mess*. It's just
me.
Marg
> ...Ken
catbr...@yahoo.com
> The shakers didn't have sex so they relied upon adoption to raise future
> members of their faith. I was saying that if they had a non-sexual way
> to reproduce they might still be around.
That would take the only fun out of pro-creation.
> > What "end", death?
>
> In the long run, sure. That's not bad or anything: Life is a terminal
> disease, after all.
So why waste what life we have.
> > > You had claimed that career men and women were equivalent and I was
> > > disputing that argument.
> >
> > I still maintain that to be so.
>
> You're free to "maintain" anything you like. I would like to hear your
> supportive arguments for your claims if for curiosity's sake.
Loss of freedom, child birth and children, potentially having one's
career considered a mere "extra income", doing the bulk of the
housework, complications...and wht if there is a divorce? On and
on...some of us are just not suited for marriage.
> > And you consider those "masculine" traits?
>
> Generally, men are more sexually promiscuous than women. Sexual
> harassment laws exist almost entirely to protect women. You've just
> stated so yourself that you're relieved to be free of sexual advances
> from men in the workplace. Many men would happily PAY to enjoy such
> attention on the other hand.
I am glad that the sexual quid pro quo harassment is gone from the
workplace, yes. And men should not feel free to walk around and touch
women without being invited to do so - that makes for a very
unprofessional work environment.
And I know of one case in which a a guy was harassed by his female
supervisor. It can work both ways.
> Next, there's generation of income. Women have a reputation for
> equating income generation with masculinity and vice-versa: Men are more
> willing to overlook a woman not having an income if she provides sexual
> favors.
Affluent women do the same thing. Do you know anything about the sex
trade in Jamaica - about well-off American and European women who go
there to sample the "Big Bamboo"?
People with money and power will always exploit the poor for sex.
> Both of the above observations are common knowledge. You either live on
> Mars or you're pulling our leg. (In a non-sexual way, of course :-)
Actually, you're the one who is naive.
> People who brag often are stating facts too.
You made a statement about women and their incomes - I responded
honestly. I like being to pay my own way.
> > So you feel "independence" is bad? Does that apply to men too?
>
> I didn't say it was "bad". Just bad for a certain role which you don't
> appear interested in anyway, yes?
You mean obedient and dependent wife and mother? No, I don't want to be
one of those.
> > > You even have a condescending
> > > view of marriage.
> >
> > I don't mind if others get married...not at all.
>
> I was talking about your view of marriage in general, not how you view
> others doing it.
I never wear gold - I prefer silver, it goes better with my skin tones
and hair color. It's a preference. I prefer NOT to be married. It's not
condescension, it's a choice.
And that's what's really eating at the soc.meners - that women have
choices and women are not choosing them!
But that's not saying that we aren't choosing and being chosen by men.
I am not a man-hater. I love men. But I don't bother with authoritarian
dinosaurs.
> > Abortion.
>
> I had a similar conversation with a friend who was the on-off boyfriend
> of a man-hating feminist (I don't see man-hating from you so far) but
> she was also hardcore into feminist equality.
> He told me the same thing: If she got preggers, she'd get an abortion no
> problem. But when it happened, she didn't want to go through with it.
> Maybe she realized she wanted a kid after all or she had this guy
> trapped.
I am not a "hard core" anything. She made her choice - she can live
with it. Her bad or good choices have nothing to do with me. I'm not
surrendering my choices.
Men make many bad choices in life too - but no one questions their
right to do so.
I don't accept you or anyone else making my choices for me.
> > > he's stuck with
> > > someone whose just going to view him as an ATM for a bastard baby.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> It's still a risk that a woman doesn't face. An abortion or adoption as
> unpleasant as these are for you, they're better than having someone hold
> a child over your head for 18 years.
I agree. Maybe you should think before fucking? Maybe you should
actually KNOW the person. Not that I've heeded my own advice in the
past - but then, I take precautions. And I wouldn't hesitate to visit
the Women's Health Clinic (provided it hasn't been bombed by an Xian
chauvinist lunatic).
> > That's a rather ridiculous statement, considering that I make enough to
> > pay my own way in everything.
>
> Hahahaha! I'm sorry, I'm not being condescending but really: welcome to
> the world of men. Men don't have parades when they pay their own way.
> The vast majority have been doing so for the past million years or so.
And that's equally ridiculous. Most men have been subjected to
degrading poverty, just like women, by a wealthy minority. "Millions of
years" - you don't seem to know much about pre-history either.
> But that's the MIMINUM of what men have been doing. Where you are is a
> nice START but men also live up to the expectation of paying for their
> loved ones' way as well when needed.
If they make that choice - fine. I am not responsible for their
choices.
> Your boyfriend lives with that
> expectation while you can't even imagine it. Or maybe he doesn't.
> That's one nice thing about some career women: If they aren't interested
> in marriage, the guy can afford to be "cheap" and let her pay her way.
He's not "cheap" and he doesn't "let me" - your whole vocabulary is
antiquated and loaded with presumptions.
> > > (at best, you might foot your own bill from
> > > time to time) but that's probably it.
> >
> > I do all the time.
>
> Let's go back to the shakers for a moment: They made pretty good
> furniture (ok, I think it's just ok but some people go nuts for it)
> Anyways, they made good furniture but didn't have families and kids.
> But plenty of other quality furniture makers also had kids and families.
And the point....(?)
> In other words, while your accomplishments are noble, men are able to
> have "careers" _and_ support families (that include a spouse). Not just
> "pay their own way" when they make a bundle of money. Most men could do
> THAT. Hell, most men could pay their own way even if they didn't make a
> lot of money.
Talk about economic naivete! Have you actually SEEN the economic
figures for middle income Americans. Both partners are working full
time and they're still stuck.
> Really, try having 99% of the other successful women start paying their
> way (much less those that don't make a bundle of cash to make it any
> easier) and then we'll talk about this women's equality being more than
> just a flash in the pan!
There are millions and millions of women in this country, around the
world - who are doing just that! They are working, feeding families,
supporting the economy (such as it is) just like men. Women, especially
poor women, have always worked.
> > > Generally speaking, women aren't that much different than they were
> > > during the 50's despite the hype about them coming a long way and how
> > > men haven't kept up, blah blah blah.
> >
> > Blah, blah, blah...
> >
> > > They still are largely income
> > > consumers in relationships and any progress they've made (due not to
> > > them "fighting" for it but rather due to generous handholding social
> > > programs) is offset by other needs they have in relationships.
> >
> > Crap! Typical sour grapes from the soc.men cult group.
>
> Sounds like sour grapes about soc.men posting stuff you consider crap.
> :-)
No...you just came up up with the same soc.men dogma that has been
debunked over and over.
> > No social
> > program got me my job. I got it because I was better than the other
> > applicants.
>
> Perhaps you're right. I have seen otherwise though and so have other
> men even if they're not soc.meners.
Yes - it took government action to remove unnecessary barriers to
career improvement for women. The women who first entered the Edinburgh
School of Medicine in Scotland were constantly harassed and belittled
by the male students and even some of the professors. But those women
persevered. Sometimes the government HAS to intervene - as in the Civil
Rights Movement to force those who jealously hold power to practice
democracy. I will not apologize for that!
> > > Perhaps I should have phrased that: They have to assume that you're
> > > hypersensitive until, after extensive observation and caution, they
> > > learn that you're not.
> >
> > I was once accused (by a group of other women) of "helping to enable
> > the objectification of women" due to my manner of dress and behavior.
> > But I was defended by my boss - who, as it turns out, was also a woman.
> > I have many male friends.
>
> So what? I have many male and female friends too.
>
> Irregardless, you haven't disproved my point that the first perception
> any man has of a woman in the workplace is that he has to walk on eggs
> with her for a while and even then has to keep her gender in the back of
> his mind.
You mean - he has to behave in a professional manner. My god, what an
unfair demand!
> Quite simply, until the white kid gloves come off, men, even those
> you're friends with and disagree with us soc.meners, will think of women
> in the workplace like kids riding bikes on training wheels.
Trust me - you don't want the "kid gloves" to come off. Because if some
jerk backs me into a corner, publicly, I'll go (verbally) right for his
fucking nuts. You and your fellow soc.meners think they are such tough
guys - but the truth of the matter is different. The male ego is a lot
more sensitive than you boys let on.
"Kid gloves" is a stupid and childish way of describing a professional
decorum.
> > The poor boys. Fortunately, most all the men I work with are smart and
> > professional.
>
> It's funny that you should make such a condescending remark when it's
> the career women who are the ones in need to being treated as
> hypersensitive unless proven otherwise.
They don't - and I have often advised women to "tough-up" - and if a
guy crosses the line, get in his face immediately.
But you are avoiding the issue of professional conduct. Assholes,
abusers, and other low-producing people are costly to the bottom line.
Sexism in the workplace is bad for productivity. The big boys upstairs
don't like that.
> > > With men, it's understood on the other hand that they might step over
> > > the line and the person can apologize and that's it. No harm, no foul.
> >
> > You really overblow this whole thing. Maybe you don't actually work
> > with many women. I simply haven't found this to be generally so.
>
> This becomes similar to asking why there's a fence around the chicken
> coop when all the foxes are supposedly gone. :-)
And that doesn't make any sense either. When I'm at work, work comes
first and socialization later.
> If the men you work with are professional and smart and the women aren't
> hypersensitive, why do you feel relieved about rules that the men won't
> act unprofessional and dumb and treat women as hypersensitive?
I explained that. I don't want to have to fuck some middle-aged flab
ball to get a promotion. And having it nice and legal prevents the
abuse of power. And power over others always invites abuse unless
checked by the force of law.
Deal with it!
> If that's the case, then the sexual harassment laws can be eliminated
> yes?
Why do you find this law so intimidating? The fact that the law only
makes reasonable demands and that you hate the law - justifies the law
being there.
> Otherwise, this non-sexist environment is simply an effect of the
> strict rules that require men to think of women by their gender at all
> times which is a form of sexism but one that you don't mind since it's a
> burden that falls upon the "poor" men.
Oh bullshit! If you lose control of your libido go to the men's room
and jack off.
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
It's an impotent pebble thrown by impotent men. Nobody cares.
> Very true. And I've seen even the *most* extreme religious individuals
> divorce so even their religion doesn't keep em married if they wish to be
> apart. And rightly so, IMO. People should not be together if they no
> longer want to be.
I agree. But the issue becomes more complicated when children are
involved.
Recently, a male colleague of mine confided to me that he has been in a
loveless marriage for 8 years but stays because he and his wife have
agreed amicably to do so.
I've known him for 4 years and always assumed he was happily married.
They put on a good front. I could see it was hard on him though.
We were at lunch together, alone, which is unusual. There was a hint of
the dreaded silent plea for sympathy fuck in his manner. He knows my
reputation, men gossip, and he knows I'm in a long distance
relationship.
And up until recently, I might have considered - but I'm not doing that
any more.
The poor guy, I really felt sorry for him. He wants to have an affair
with somebody.
He wanted some affirmation - you know, was he still okay looking, would
women find him attractive, stuff like that.
Of course I was supportive - he's a nice guy!
As we were leaving he asked, sincerely, if he hadn't hurt our
friendship, I said "hell no, we're buddies - call me if you just need
to talk, what are friends for?"
So we talk. We went shopping, I helped him pick out some new stuff.
Many guys need help with that kind of thing.
I just can't imagine being in his, or her, place.
My relationship is so much more convenient and low maintenance. We get
together for social events, art festivals, games (he's a sports fan!)
and we fuck our brains out.
Then back to our respective careers. Everyone in our professional and
social sets knows we are a couple and that we're exclusive.
He asked me to marry him and I considered. Then we talked. What he
really wanted me to know was how much he cares for me and that he
doesn't want to share me. And over margaritas we promised on our
friendship not to screw anyone else.
I like it! I finally found a guy I can be faithful to, though maybe
it's age too. I'm 33 now, not 26.
> > They certainly waste a lot of time in anger and resentment. And that's
> > time they will never get back either.
>
> There is that. But then with some of these *losers* what else could they do
> with their time?
>
> Marg
Golf?
;D
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
Andre Lieven scribbled in crayon:
> >> A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
> >> Thing.
> >>
> >> Andre
She should read one of your posts - that would keep her laughing for a
week.
Face it Andre - you've become a kind of grotesque joke.
(Cracking the whip!) Back in your hole, Igor!
Cat
pandora
<catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157905646.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
True enough. Some seem to think that someone does care though. It's been
used as a mini-threat to women everywhere for quite some time now.
> > Very true. And I've seen even the *most* extreme religious individuals
> > divorce so even their religion doesn't keep em married if they wish to
be
> > apart. And rightly so, IMO. People should not be together if they no
> > longer want to be.
>
> I agree. But the issue becomes more complicated when children are
> involved.
Absolutely! Children complicate matters immensely. However, some can work
out how to manage custody, child support and visitations without rancor. It
is the ones who cannot do so that we hear from the most.
> Recently, a male colleague of mine confided to me that he has been in a
> loveless marriage for 8 years but stays because he and his wife have
> agreed amicably to do so.
Their choice, of course. *I* cannot imagine staying in any relationship
under those circumstances.
> I've known him for 4 years and always assumed he was happily married.
> They put on a good front. I could see it was hard on him though.
I'm sure it is and for her as well. And even for the kids I imagine. My
parents stayed together "for the sake of the kids" for many years. I can't
say that it would have been better if they'd split but it certainly was
terrible with them together; the coldness between them and in our house was
very obvious. Not exactly a good example to set for kids about
relationships. I would bet the kids *know* whether or not the parents think
so.
> We were at lunch together, alone, which is unusual. There was a hint of
> the dreaded silent plea for sympathy fuck in his manner. He knows my
> reputation, men gossip, and he knows I'm in a long distance
> relationship.
> And up until recently, I might have considered - but I'm not doing that
> any more.
That is entirely up to you. Your life and all that.
> The poor guy, I really felt sorry for him. He wants to have an affair
> with somebody.
> He wanted some affirmation - you know, was he still okay looking, would
> women find him attractive, stuff like that.
Makes sense to me. Everyone needs affirmation from someone somewhere. It
is a human trait, especially if/when one has been rejected.
> Of course I was supportive - he's a nice guy!
> As we were leaving he asked, sincerely, if he hadn't hurt our
> friendship, I said "hell no, we're buddies - call me if you just need
> to talk, what are friends for?"
Indeed. Friends are good. I had nothing BUT friends in HS. I didn't go on
dates as I was too busy studying and doing volunteer work. I did have male
friends though. We were *buds*. I think that was probably better, at that
age, than having *boyfriends*, although at the time I really wanted to have
a boyfriend. :-) In retrospect, I'm very happy about the way we were.
> So we talk. We went shopping, I helped him pick out some new stuff.
> Many guys need help with that kind of thing.
And even if he didn't really *need* it, I'm sure he was pleased at the
attention. Who wouldn't be?
> I just can't imagine being in his, or her, place.
I can imagine it, but I wouldn't want to be IN it.
> My relationship is so much more convenient and low maintenance. We get
> together for social events, art festivals, games (he's a sports fan!)
> and we fuck our brains out.
Sounds like a plan to me. :-)
> Then back to our respective careers. Everyone in our professional and
> social sets knows we are a couple and that we're exclusive.
> He asked me to marry him and I considered. Then we talked. What he
> really wanted me to know was how much he cares for me and that he
> doesn't want to share me. And over margaritas we promised on our
> friendship not to screw anyone else.
Again, as long as that is enough for the both of you, then that's all that
is required. And in truth, that's all that anyone really can hope for. I'm
not a religious person, so the marriage ceremony meant nothing to us. It
was done purely for the sake of our parents; all of whom are dead now. And
what, in truth, did the ceremony really do? Nothing. We had already made
our personal commitments and that was enough for us. Do we care that we're
*legally* married? Well, in truth, it really doesn't matter. We're
together because we want to be and we stay together because we still love
each other madly.
> I like it! I finally found a guy I can be faithful to, though maybe
> it's age too. I'm 33 now, not 26.
It's possible that age is a factor. People used to marry in their 20's
before they really knew what *they* wanted out of life or in a spouse. I
married at 21 but was really lucky to find my best friend and soul mate at
that time. If I hadn't felt that way, I would have remained single until I
did, if ever. After watching my parents, I wasn't about to *settle* for
anything less. Most people by their 30's know who they are and what they
want out of life and a partner. Of course, now and then someone meets their
life partner younger even than their 20s. My middle son met his when they
were both 13. It was like Romeo and Juliet only their parents weren't
feuding. We were all good friends (and still are).
> > > They certainly waste a lot of time in anger and resentment. And that's
> > > time they will never get back either.
> >
> > There is that. But then with some of these *losers* what else could
they do
> > with their time?
> >
> > Marg
>
> Golf?
:-)
Marg
> ;D
>
> Cat
>
pandora
<catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157906352.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I'm waiting to see what his posts are like after he's married. How long
will it last? How subservient will she be? Will Andre stop being the
misogynist asshole that he has been?
Stay tuned......
Marg
> Cat
>
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> pandora wrote:
> > "Ken Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> > news:2UJLg.10331$Hr1.4061@clgrps12...
> >
> >
> >>Hyerdahl wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's not a matter of "guys insisting"; it's a matter of what kind of
> >>>cleanliness society expects and who gets blamed if standards are not
> >>>met. I know many, many career women who hire someone to come in once a
> >>>week.
> >>
> >>Problem solved...and they both contributed equally since *all* the
> >>income is matrimonial money right ;-)
Well, women can decide to contribute evenly if they wish, Ken, or they
can decide to pay all themselves, or they can decide that husbands
should pay for the part they don't want to do. Whatever women decide
vs. divorce is fine. The same applies to men, Ken.
> > Indeed. Problem solved. However, it might not be especially if the
> > individual was hired *because* one of the spouses wasn't willing to pull
> > their weight with the housework. I know of many career couples who actually
> > DO share the housework and childcare and yardcare and car care.
As do I.
Why?> Because they a) cannot afford to pay someone else to do the work
and b) feel
> > that these things should be shared.
Yup.
Certainly they should be shared duties in order that one isn't left
holding the bag and feeling they are playing> > servant to the other.
So, one makes the meals and the other cleans up;> > nightly, not once
in a while. One takes care of the cars and the other
> > takes care of the yardwork. One dusts and vacuums, the other does the
> > laundry.
>
> I agree that there should be an equal "distribution" of labour but that
> doesn't necessarily mean exactly the same number of hours spent by each.
Sure it does. Now, I'm not suggesting that marriage partners should
get into bean counting here, but generally the same number of hours of
work load should apply.
> In my home *I* actually do more of the cooking and laundry and dishes
> than Laura...but that is *my* choice. I get home an hour and a half
> before her so I prepare supper, clean up the day's dishes and do the
> wash, as well as working at other "around the house" chores from the
> "honey do" list. I do these things because if I don't we don't get as
> much time to spend together. I'm fairly busy with volunteer work and
> want to maximize our time together so, rather than sitting reading a
> book or watching TV, I get that stuff out of the way to make time later.
AGain, if you both are spending about the same number of hours on
chores that seems fine to me, as long as everyone is content.
>The thing I object to is when either partner has an unrealistic
> standard, whether it be frequency of vacuuming the house or washing the
> car. In that case, I thing it should be up to the partner with the
> unreasonable standard to either get over it or to personally make
> whatever extra effort they feel is necessary and cannot agree that they
> would have any credible grievance against a partner who refused to
> accommodate what they feel is unnecessary...
>
> > To me, it isn't about WHO does WHAT but that neither partner feels the other
> > is being lazy. If someone feels that way, they should sit down and talk
> > about it. Talk about what expectations they feel are reasonable and what
> > aren't. And just how they are going to take care of things. Nothing should
> > be left to chance or whoever can't stand the mess first.
Sure. I agree.
>
> I agree...but this has to happen with an open mind.
Why does this bring to mind that old cannard about the wife who finds
her husband in bed with another woman and he says, "Don't you trust me?
Are you going to believe what you see or what I tell you? :-)
I (personally) > think that quite a lot of this is women bowing to the
unrealistic
> "expectations" of family and friends...as I said in another post, we
> have a small stone plaque in our kitchen that says:
> "Our home, clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be happy"
I don't think there has to be anything wrong with that, PROVIDED both
agree. :-)
> If more women took that attitude they might find that their husbands,
> who object to vacuuming every day after work and cleaning the whole
> house on the weekend, wouldn't object to spending a couple of hours on
> Sunday helping them clean house...and would also have the balls to tell
> his mother to "piss off" when she comes for her "white glove" inspection ;-)
How many men DO tell their white glove inspectors that tho? :-) The
truth is, Ken that whoever comes over is going to judge you, like it or
not. If women are rated as the ones keeping the homes clean, then THEY
will be the ones judged whether or not you agree.
>
> ...Ken
Ken Chaddock
> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
>>pandora wrote:
>>
>>>"Ken Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:2UJLg.10331$Hr1.4061@clgrps12...
>>>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>>>>It's not a matter of "guys insisting"; it's a matter of what kind of
>>>>>cleanliness society expects and who gets blamed if standards are not
>>>>>met. I know many, many career women who hire someone to come in once a
>>>>>week.
>>>>Problem solved...and they both contributed equally since *all* the
>>>>income is matrimonial money right ;-)
> Well, women can decide to contribute evenly if they wish, Ken, or they
> can decide to pay all themselves, or they can decide that husbands
> should pay for the part they don't want to do. Whatever women decide
> vs. divorce is fine. The same applies to men, Ken.
Seems to be a bit convoluted...and unrealistic...what if they both
"decide" to do something but that the "somethings" are at odds ? For
example, say he hates vacuuming so he hires someone to do it but she
"decides" to vacuum anyway and *still* complains that he's not doing
"his share" ? Seems to me that they have to co-ordinate their actions
otherwise they run the risk of stepping on each other's toes...
>>>Indeed. Problem solved. However, it might not be especially if the
>>>individual was hired *because* one of the spouses wasn't willing to pull
>>>their weight with the housework.
I'd say that it's irrelevant *how* the work gets done, just as long as
it gets done. It doesn't matter whether he/she does it personally, hires
Molly Maid or sweet talks the fairies to come in at night when everyone
is asleep...just as long as it gets done...
>>>I know of many career couples who actually
>>>DO share the housework and childcare and yardcare and car care.
> As do I.
<snip>
>> I agree that there should be an equal "distribution" of labour but that
>>doesn't necessarily mean exactly the same number of hours spent by each.
> Sure it does. Now, I'm not suggesting that marriage partners should
> get into bean counting here, but generally the same number of hours of
> work load should apply.
No it doesn't. If he is out breaking a heavy sweat doing yard work with
an average energy expenditure of 480 calories an hour while she is doing
the dusting at an average energy expenditure of 120 calories an
hour...he's working 4 times harder than she is and that difference must
be taken into consideration...
>>In my home *I* actually do more of the cooking and laundry and dishes
>>than Laura...but that is *my* choice. I get home an hour and a half
>>before her so I prepare supper, clean up the day's dishes and do the
>>wash, as well as working at other "around the house" chores from the
>>"honey do" list. I do these things because if I don't we don't get as
>>much time to spend together. I'm fairly busy with volunteer work and
>>want to maximize our time together so, rather than sitting reading a
>>book or watching TV, I get that stuff out of the way to make time later.
> AGain, if you both are spending about the same number of hours on
> chores that seems fine to me, as long as everyone is content.
You know, it's not a matter of totting up how many minutes each spend,
it's a matter of looking at a "fair" distribution of labour. If he is
working 4 times harder that she is it's not *fair* to demand that he
work as long as she does...
>>The thing I object to is when either partner has an unrealistic
>>standard, whether it be frequency of vacuuming the house or washing the
>>car. In that case, I thing it should be up to the partner with the
>>unreasonable standard to either get over it or to personally make
>>whatever extra effort they feel is necessary and cannot agree that they
>>would have any credible grievance against a partner who refused to
>>accommodate what they feel is unnecessary...
>>>To me, it isn't about WHO does WHAT but that neither partner feels the other
>>>is being lazy. If someone feels that way, they should sit down and talk
>>>about it. Talk about what expectations they feel are reasonable and what
>>>aren't. And just how they are going to take care of things. Nothing should
>>>be left to chance or whoever can't stand the mess first.
> Sure. I agree.
>
>> I agree...but this has to happen with an open mind.
> Why does this bring to mind that old cannard about the wife who finds
> her husband in bed with another woman and he says, "Don't you trust me?
> Are you going to believe what you see or what I tell you? :-)
>
>> I (personally) > think that quite a lot of this is women bowing to the
>>unrealistic "expectations" of family and friends...as I said in another
>>post, we have a small stone plaque in our kitchen that says:
>> "Our home, clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be happy"
> I don't think there has to be anything wrong with that, PROVIDED both
> agree. :-)
If the home is "clean enough to be healthy" all that really needs to be
done *has* been done, if he or she wants to work to a higher standard
they can certainly chose to do that but they have no credible
justification for *expecting* their partner to help them...now I'm not
saying that their partner shouldn't help them, just that he or she
shouldn't *have to* help them...
>>If more women took that attitude they might find that their husbands,
>>who object to vacuuming every day after work and cleaning the whole
>>house on the weekend, wouldn't object to spending a couple of hours on
>>Sunday helping them clean house...and would also have the balls to tell
>>his mother to "piss off" when she comes for her "white glove" inspection ;-)
> How many men DO tell their white glove inspectors that tho? :-)
How many women do ? Laura never worried about my mother coming over but
she used to dread a visit from her mother...until I finally got it
through her head that it was *our* home, not her mother's, and we would
maintain it to *our* standards, not her mother's...
> The truth is, Ken that whoever comes over is going to judge you, like it or
> not.
I don't even know how to express how irrelevant that is...
> If women are rated as the ones keeping the homes clean, then THEY
> will be the ones judged whether or not you agree.
Well I guess it's a matter of *who* you want to please...your partner
or some else. I think that someone who values an outsider's approval
more than keeping their partner happy is making what could become a
relationship destroying mistake and has their values seriously out of
wack...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
> "Ken Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:Q1JMg.1306$KA6.414@clgrps12...
>
>>pandora wrote:
>>>Indeed. Problem solved. However, it might not be especially if the
>>>individual was hired *because* one of the spouses wasn't willing to pull
>>>their weight with the housework. I know of many career couples who
>>>actually DO share the housework and childcare and yardcare and car care.
>>>Why? Because they a) cannot afford to pay someone else to do the work
>>>and b)feel that these things should be shared. Certainly they should
>>>be shared duties in order that one isn't left holding the bag and feeling
>>>they are playing servant to the other. So, one makes the meals and the
>>>other cleans up; nightly, not once in a while. One takes care of the cars
>>>and the other takes care of the yardwork. One dusts and vacuums, the other
>>>does the laundry.
>>
>>I agree that there should be an equal "distribution" of labour but that
>>doesn't necessarily mean exactly the same number of hours spent by each.
> Possibly. It depends on the kind of work and how often it has to be done.
> Again, however, these duties need to be discussed and agreed to by the
> participants or either it won't get done or one (or both) will feel used and
> therefore unhappy.
As I noted in another post, if one of the partners is out doing hard
manual labour with an energy expenditure of 480 calories per hour whilt
the other ius doing general house work with an average energy
expenditure of 120 calories per hour, *one* of the partners is working 4
times harder than the other...it's unrealistic and unfair to insist that
the numbers of hours be "equal"
I think there is a "base line" that can be established. For example, in
your case your allergies *required* a higher than normal standard of
cleanliness with respect to dust. That would require more frequent
vacuuming and dusting and probably would have benefited from a high
filtration rate vacuum cleaner as well...but this level isn't necessary
in *most* households. Same thing goes for cleaning an oven. I have a
sister-in-law who cleanes her over once a week...whether it's been used
or not ! I think she's nuts, so does her SO who refuses to help her
maintain such a ridiculous standard...
>>>To me, it isn't about WHO does WHAT but that neither partner feels the
>>>other is being lazy. If someone feels that way, they should sit down
>>>and talkabout it. Talk about what expectations they feel are reasonable
>>>and what aren't. And just how they are going to take care of things.
>>>Nothing should be left to chance or whoever can't stand the mess first.
>>
>>I agree...but this has to happen with an open mind. I (personally)
>>think that quite a lot of this is women bowing to the unrealistic
>>"expectations" of family and friends...
> That is also a possibility. And indeed it has been women who have bourne
> the brunt of the nastiness of having an *untidy/unclean* home. Such
> expectations are not only silly but unnecessary and (as has been discovered
> recently), a truly *clean* house may even be a negative where children are
> concerned. A bit dirty is preferable to a disinfected home for the health
> of children.
>
> as I said in another post, we
>>have a small stone plaque in our kitchen that says:
>> "Our home, clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be happy"
> :-) I like that.
>>If more women took that attitude they might find that their husbands,
>>who object to vacuuming every day after work and cleaning the whole
>>house on the weekend, wouldn't object to spending a couple of hours on
>>Sunday helping them clean house...and would also have the balls to tell
>>his mother to "piss off" when she comes for her "white glove" inspection
>>;-)
>
> That would be a sight to see. :-) But yes, that would be preferable to
> constant complaining by one or the other about who isn't doing what or
> forcing one to do that which they feel is unnecessary.
I think that's part of it. It's not all women, if the man doesn't want
to spend all weekend cleaning he might want to make sure his partner
*knows* that he doesn't mind a bit of mess and is willing to tell his
mum to piss off if necessary...
...Ken
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote accurately:
>
>> >> A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
>> >> Thing.
>> >>
>> >> Andre
>
> She should read one of your posts - that would keep her laughing for a
> week.
No proof ever offered ? Cowshit fcat free claim still fails.
> Face it Andre - you've become a kind of grotesque joke.
<Massive Sexist Sow Projection>
> (Cracking the whip!) Back in your hole, Igor!
Stop posting while on crack. HTH.
And, thanks for, once again, *proving* that you CANNOT debate
actual topics. Thats kind of funny... in a " grotesque " kind
of way... <laughs>
Andre
catbr...@yahoo.com
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> As I noted in another post, if one of the partners is out doing hard
> manual labour with an energy expenditure of 480 calories per hour whilt
> the other ius doing general house work with an average energy
> expenditure of 120 calories per hour, *one* of the partners is working 4
> times harder than the other...it's unrealistic and unfair to insist that
> the numbers of hours be "equal"
Maybe my family was different, but there wasn't a clear division of
labor, except when it came to kitchen and house work. Men were not
allowed in the kitchen to work. But on a farm, everyone works.
I hated kitchen work, and there were three girls and one boy in our
family so I helped my brother and dad more than my sisters. My brother
never washed dishes or vacuumed the floor. There was no resentment
because my brother and I were out tending to hogs, corn, etc.
But everyone worked and in season, we all did heavy physical work.
My friends look at me now and can't imagine that I grew up on a working
farm.
I think one of the many reasons I never wanted to marry and be a
stay-at-home wife was because I never liked washing dishes, cleaning,
cooking, etc., when I was a kid.
I was considered a "tomboy".
> I think there is a "base line" that can be established. For example, in
> your case your allergies *required* a higher than normal standard of
> cleanliness with respect to dust. That would require more frequent
> vacuuming and dusting and probably would have benefited from a high
> filtration rate vacuum cleaner as well...but this level isn't necessary
> in *most* households. Same thing goes for cleaning an oven. I have a
> sister-in-law who cleanes her over once a week...whether it's been used
> or not ! I think she's nuts, so does her SO who refuses to help her
> maintain such a ridiculous standard...
Two rooms in my house are always spotless - the bathroom and the
kitchen. Everything else is in a state of continuous minor disorder.
> I think that's part of it. It's not all women, if the man doesn't want
> to spend all weekend cleaning he might want to make sure his partner
> *knows* that he doesn't mind a bit of mess and is willing to tell his
> mum to piss off if necessary...
>
> ...Ken
LOL! The first time my parents came out to stay with me in my house, I
caught my mother in the morning straightening up and lecturing me as if
I were 16.
Cat
pandora
Hmm, I see what you're getting at, but I don't necessarily agree with your
premise. After all, it isn't really how *hard* a person is working, is it?
I mean, should my digging up grass in the yard to plant a flowerbed for 20
hours, mean that my husband would have to make x numbers of dinner to make
certain that his expenditure of energy is the same as mine? I just don't
see it that way. I DO the yard work in part because I LIKE TO DO IT. It's
good exercise for me and I want our yard a certain way. I honestly believe
it isn't the amount of work done, or even how much energy is expended but is
rather how the individuals feel about the division of labor.
Had one and it did help, some. There was still the backbreaking chore of
the vacuuming itself. Dusting was always done with a damp sponge so the
dust was actually picked up and not just flicked into the air. And in
truth, *I* wasn't supposed to even be IN the house when it was being
cleaned. However, we couldn't afford to hire that job out.
but this level isn't necessary
> in *most* households. Same thing goes for cleaning an oven. I have a
> sister-in-law who cleanes her over once a week...whether it's been used
> or not ! I think she's nuts, so does her SO who refuses to help her
> maintain such a ridiculous standard...
Oooops! I haven't cleaned mine in a YEAR. I'll bet she'd have an absolute
fit in MY house. Oh well, I'm buying a new one this Xmas. Yeah, I know the
old saw about "The ash tray(stove) is full (dirty) so I'm buying a new
car(stove)," might apply here. :-)
I think that you're right and that sometimes men, in particular, just don't
realize the pressure put on and felt by their wives/girlfriends about the
standard of cleanliness in their home. I've known guys that just headed off
to play golf every Saturday BECAUSE their wives were doing the vacuuming and
dusting. Sheesh! Maybe a bit of help (or conversely discussing it and
deciding that it didn't need to be done *every* Saturday), might have been
beneficial for both; he could go golfing without her being upset and she
could go out for lunch with her girlfriends OR heaven forfend, they might
even go play golf together. :-)
I do think it's important, however, for MEN to realize that beds don't make
themselves, clean laundry doesn't just *appear* in their chests of drawers,
and a clean and tidy house wasn't done by elves after midnight. My husband
was *always* good about making sure our kids KNEW and ACKNOWLEDGED the fact
that it was *I* who bought the groceries and made most of the meals and
provided them with clean, folded pants and shirts to wear. Of course, they
were made even more aware of the amount of work even laundry can be when
they were each handed the job for washing their *own* clothing at age 13.
And I always reminded them that they were only doing their OWN and not
everyone else's. Yes, they appreciated what I had done for years and what I
was still doing for their younger siblings.
Marg
> ...Ken
pandora
> (catman...@misandrist.cow) posted denigration alone:
> > Andre Lieven wrote accurately:
> >
> >> >> A fact that enrages the Maureen Dowd's of the world, which is a Good
> >> >> Thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Andre
> >
> > She should read one of your posts - that would keep her laughing for a
> > week.
>
> No proof ever offered ? Cowshit fcat free claim still fails.
YOu call that debate? Ptui!!
> > Face it Andre - you've become a kind of grotesque joke.
>
> <Massive Sexist Sow Projection>
Massive Sexist Pig misunderstanding.
> > (Cracking the whip!) Back in your hole, Igor!
>
> Stop posting while on crack. HTH.
>
> And, thanks for, once again, *proving* that you CANNOT debate
> actual topics. Thats kind of funny... in a " grotesque " kind
> of way... <laughs>
Andre, I've never once seen you debate anyone. You are a sick, pathetic
asshole.
Marg
> Andre
pandora
<catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157983083....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
> > As I noted in another post, if one of the partners is out doing hard
> > manual labour with an energy expenditure of 480 calories per hour whilt
> > the other ius doing general house work with an average energy
> > expenditure of 120 calories per hour, *one* of the partners is working 4
> > times harder than the other...it's unrealistic and unfair to insist that
> > the numbers of hours be "equal"
>
> Maybe my family was different, but there wasn't a clear division of
> labor, except when it came to kitchen and house work. Men were not
> allowed in the kitchen to work. But on a farm, everyone works.
> I hated kitchen work, and there were three girls and one boy in our
> family so I helped my brother and dad more than my sisters. My brother
> never washed dishes or vacuumed the floor. There was no resentment
> because my brother and I were out tending to hogs, corn, etc.
> But everyone worked and in season, we all did heavy physical work.
>
> My friends look at me now and can't imagine that I grew up on a working
> farm.
>
> I think one of the many reasons I never wanted to marry and be a
> stay-at-home wife was because I never liked washing dishes, cleaning,
> cooking, etc., when I was a kid.
> I was considered a "tomboy".
As was I. While my brother was inside helping Mom with baking cookies and
brownies, I was outside with Dad throwing a baseball or pruning roses.
Might be why I'm so fixated on yard work today. :-) My baking skillls are
lacking but I do make a mean stir fry.
> > I think there is a "base line" that can be established. For example, in
> > your case your allergies *required* a higher than normal standard of
> > cleanliness with respect to dust. That would require more frequent
> > vacuuming and dusting and probably would have benefited from a high
> > filtration rate vacuum cleaner as well...but this level isn't necessary
> > in *most* households. Same thing goes for cleaning an oven. I have a
> > sister-in-law who cleanes her over once a week...whether it's been used
> > or not ! I think she's nuts, so does her SO who refuses to help her
> > maintain such a ridiculous standard...
>
> Two rooms in my house are always spotless - the bathroom and the
> kitchen. Everything else is in a state of continuous minor disorder.
You need to invite a *putterer* into your home. :-) I fluff pillows and
straighten afghans and furniture at the drop of a hat. :-)
> > I think that's part of it. It's not all women, if the man doesn't want
> > to spend all weekend cleaning he might want to make sure his partner
> > *knows* that he doesn't mind a bit of mess and is willing to tell his
> > mum to piss off if necessary...
> >
> > ...Ken
>
> LOL! The first time my parents came out to stay with me in my house, I
> caught my mother in the morning straightening up and lecturing me as if
> I were 16.
When we had been married for about 10 years, my in-laws came to visit us for
the first time. We had planned on going to a party that evening as they had
arrived unannounced. They said that was fine and they would babysit for us
while we went to the party. We came home to find our entire living room
rearranged. It seems my mother-in-law didn't like the way we had our
livingroom furniture. I NEVER touch anything in my kids' homes unless I've
made food.
Marg
> Cat
>