'Mommy Wars': To Work or Stay at Home?

[PolishKnight]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1

"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.

So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

Census figures show 54 percent of mothers with a graduate or
professional degree no longer work full time. In 2003 and 2004 Hirshman
interviewed about 30 women whose wedding announcements had appeared in
The New York Times in 1996 and who had had children. Five of the women
were working full time, and 10 were working part time. The rest were not
working at all."

[Heidi Graw]

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

Mark, one of those mothers was an "on call" nurse working 14 hour days!
You can't raise children under those kinds of working conditions. She might
have remained at work had she known she would have regularly scheduled
8-hour days. This would have allowed her at least some time for family,
helping the kids with homework and reading them bedtime stories. Nowadays,
nursing is such a demanding field, requiring insane number of hours of work
that it simply isn't worthwhile to sacrifice the lives of these children for
the sake of public and/or private health.

Plus, we don't know anything about those husbands. If they worked full-time
hours with lots of overtime, they would not have been able to cope with the
wife being gone for long hours, too.

The woman who quit her job to find new work to do from home did the right
thing. It allowed her to be available for the children while yet earning an
income to help support their life-style.

Remember also they're talking about the lives of high-income families.
These women are married to wealthy me. Middle and low income families, who
form the bulk of the population, do not have those same options for one or
the other to simply quit work to stay home.

If there's a mommy war being waged, it's being waged at and within the upper
strata of society. The wealthy men appear to be staying out of this war.
Wealthy mommies are the ones quibbling among themselves. This sort of thing
provides small comfort for those situated in those lower economic levels.
Those middle and low income mothers and fathers are in the same boat. They
have no choice! There's no mommy war being waged at those lower levels. If
anything, some of those mommies may feel envious and the fathers less than
adequate. They can't do the same for their own children.

The article does bring up a valid concern, though. When highly trained
professional women quit their jobs, is there a reason they should feel
obligated to use that training for the good of society at large? This seems
to be the critics' view when they see these professionals just up and quit.
Should anything be done to try to keep these professionals working?

Would middle to low income *men* step up to the plate to take up the slack
as more of these professional women leave? How many of these middle class
men would strive to become a nurse with a master's degree?

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

Mark, one of those mothers was an "on call" nurse working 14 hour days!
You can't raise children under those kinds of working conditions. She might
have remained at work had she known she would have regularly scheduled
8-hour days. This would have allowed her at least some time for family,
helping the kids with homework and reading them bedtime stories. Nowadays,
nursing is such a demanding field, requiring insane number of hours of work
that it simply isn't worthwhile to sacrifice the lives of these children for
the sake of public and/or private health.
Plus, we don't know anything about those husbands. If they worked full-time
hours with lots of overtime, they would not have been able to cope with the
wife being gone for long hours, too.

Interestingly enough (and perhaps unrelated), I have a friend
whose very angry at his wife (he's threatening seperation) because
she works overtime at a grocery store and doesn't have much
time for her husband and two daughters. She clears about $50K total.

Post by Heidi Graw
The woman who quit her job to find new work to do from home did the right
thing. It allowed her to be available for the children while yet earning an
income to help support their life-style.
Remember also they're talking about the lives of high-income families.
These women are married to wealthy me. Middle and low income families, who
form the bulk of the population, do not have those same options for one or
the other to simply quit work to stay home.

I beg to disagree.

I think SAH mothers are most common in either upper or
lower middle class families. The upper middle class
can afford them, certainly but the lower middle class
may also decide that it's more affordable to cut back
on expenses than have the wife continue working

Post by Heidi Graw
If there's a mommy war being waged, it's being waged at and within the upper
strata of society. The wealthy men appear to be staying out of this war.
Wealthy mommies are the ones quibbling among themselves. This sort of thing
provides small comfort for those situated in those lower economic levels.
Those middle and low income mothers and fathers are in the same boat. They
have no choice! There's no mommy war being waged at those lower levels. If
anything, some of those mommies may feel envious and the fathers less than
adequate. They can't do the same for their own children.

I met two middle class, young women (20 something) who were frustrated
that their husband didn't work harder so she could "sacrifice"
her career to stay at home. See the problem with that attitude?
I have seen numerous articles to advice columns with men
complaining their wives were trying to sneak into a SAH
mother role and not go back to work after maternity leave.

Post by Heidi Graw
The article does bring up a valid concern, though. When highly trained
professional women quit their jobs, is there a reason they should feel
obligated to use that training for the good of society at large? This seems
to be the critics' view when they see these professionals just up and quit.
Should anything be done to try to keep these professionals working?

This is where the mommy wars come in: The solution, more goodies
for working career women, means an indirect loss of income
for the SAH mothers from their husband's paychecks.

Post by Heidi Graw
Would middle to low income *men* step up to the plate to take up the slack
as more of these professional women leave?

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Pretty funny! Do you really mean that?
Lessee: Men should bust their ass so that professional women can change
their mind when it suits them. Arbeit ein frei. Hurry!
Work harder on that V-1! The motherland needs it!

Post by Heidi Graw
How many of these middle class
men would strive to become a nurse with a master's degree?
Heidi

I know two men who worked through school to get masters
in nursing. One of them met a very attractive American doctor
(he's quite attractive himself) but he dumped her because
he felt both threatened by her success and if she had
become a SAH mother, he would have had to live with that
guilt of having her "sacrifice" her career.

regards,
PolishKnight

[r***@pdq.net]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

Mark, one of those mothers was an "on call" nurse working 14 hour days!
You can't raise children under those kinds of working conditions. She might
have remained at work had she known she would have regularly scheduled
8-hour days.

In other words, if someone else was available to cover.

This would have allowed her at least some time for family,

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
helping the kids with homework and reading them bedtime stories. Nowadays,
nursing is such a demanding field, requiring insane number of hours of work
that it simply isn't worthwhile to sacrifice the lives of these children for
the sake of public and/or private health.
Plus, we don't know anything about those husbands. If they worked full-time
hours with lots of overtime, they would not have been able to cope with the
wife being gone for long hours, too.

Interestingly enough (and perhaps unrelated), I have a friend
whose very angry at his wife (he's threatening seperation) because
she works overtime at a grocery store and doesn't have much
time for her husband and two daughters. She clears about $50K total.

Post by Heidi Graw
The woman who quit her job to find new work to do from home did the right
thing. It allowed her to be available for the children while yet earning an
income to help support their life-style.
Remember also they're talking about the lives of high-income families.
These women are married to wealthy me. Middle and low income families, who
form the bulk of the population, do not have those same options for one or
the other to simply quit work to stay home.

I beg to disagree.
I think SAH mothers are most common in either upper or
lower middle class families. The upper middle class
can afford them, certainly but the lower middle class
may also decide that it's more affordable to cut back
on expenses than have the wife continue working

Post by Heidi Graw
If there's a mommy war being waged, it's being waged at and within the upper
strata of society. The wealthy men appear to be staying out of this war.
Wealthy mommies are the ones quibbling among themselves. This sort of thing
provides small comfort for those situated in those lower economic levels.
Those middle and low income mothers and fathers are in the same boat. They
have no choice! There's no mommy war being waged at those lower levels. If
anything, some of those mommies may feel envious and the fathers less than
adequate. They can't do the same for their own children.

I met two middle class, young women (20 something) who were frustrated
that their husband didn't work harder so she could "sacrifice"
her career to stay at home. See the problem with that attitude?
I have seen numerous articles to advice columns with men
complaining their wives were trying to sneak into a SAH
mother role and not go back to work after maternity leave.

I think society will eventually face the fact that training women
expensively for jobs they do not actually intend to peform is a dead
weight burden to the rest of us.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
The article does bring up a valid concern, though. When highly trained
professional women quit their jobs, is there a reason they should feel
obligated to use that training for the good of society at large? This seems
to be the critics' view when they see these professionals just up and quit.
Should anything be done to try to keep these professionals working?

This is where the mommy wars come in: The solution, more goodies
for working career women, means an indirect loss of income
for the SAH mothers from their husband's paychecks.

Post by Heidi Graw
Would middle to low income *men* step up to the plate to take up the slack
as more of these professional women leave?

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Pretty funny! Do you really mean that?
Lessee: Men should bust their ass so that professional women can change
their mind when it suits them. Arbeit ein frei. Hurry!
Work harder on that V-1! The motherland needs it!

Post by Heidi Graw
How many of these middle class
men would strive to become a nurse with a master's degree?
Heidi

I know two men who worked through school to get masters
in nursing. One of them met a very attractive American doctor
(he's quite attractive himself) but he dumped her because
he felt both threatened by her success and if she had
become a SAH mother, he would have had to live with that
guilt of having her "sacrifice" her career.
regards,
PolishKnight

[PolishKnight]

Post by r***@pdq.net
I think society will eventually face the fact that training women
expensively for jobs they do not actually intend to peform is a dead
weight burden to the rest of us.

The feminists have successfully argued, at least in the media,
that the purpose of western civilization is to enable women to
pursue opportunities for their own sheer self enjoyment.
They even argue that a nation's merit should be judged by
it's commitment to "women's" rights.

It's a lot different than the good old days when countries had such
lofty goals as improving the standard of living for it's citizens
or even silly like putting a man on the moon.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by r***@pdq.net
I think society will eventually face the fact that training women
expensively for jobs they do not actually intend to peform is a dead
weight burden to the rest of us.

I woudn't bank on it. I'll give you an example of what happened in my area.
The women wanted their own women's hospital to deal with all their female
health related issues. This hospital is staffed by women. They've got
female nurses, female doctors, female specialists. They've arranged their
worktime to allow for family obligations, too. They've got a significant
staff of part-timers and flex-time healthcare workers. It's a hospital for
women, by women. It's supported by the Provincial and Federal tax-payers,
plus premiums paid by tax-payers themselves.

There was some contraversy about building this centre. Some members of the
public objected because they believed it is was sexist. Other people
supported it. The community in which this women's hospital exists is within
a predominately conservative area and is also part of the bible belt.
Church ladies were the driving force behind effort. Female health-care
providers also supported the scheme because it allowed them to balance work
with family life. A lot of men also liked the idea. They could depend on
their working wives still being free enough to pay attention to them as well
as the children.

The project went ahead despite some of the protests. Here in BC, in order
to keep our female professionals, they are making it possible for them to
juggle work and home. They can do both and are doing it.

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by r***@pdq.net
I think society will eventually face the fact that training women
expensively for jobs they do not actually intend to peform is a dead
weight burden to the rest of us.

I woudn't bank on it. I'll give you an example of what happened in my area.
The women wanted their own women's hospital to deal with all their female
health related issues. This hospital is staffed by women. They've got
female nurses, female doctors, female specialists. They've arranged their
worktime to allow for family obligations, too. They've got a significant
staff of part-timers and flex-time healthcare workers. It's a hospital for
women, by women. It's supported by the Provincial and Federal tax-payers,
plus premiums paid by tax-payers themselves.
There was some contraversy about building this centre. Some members of the
public objected because they believed it is was sexist. Other people
supported it. The community in which this women's hospital exists is within
a predominately conservative area and is also part of the bible belt.
Church ladies were the driving force behind effort. Female health-care
providers also supported the scheme because it allowed them to balance work
with family life. A lot of men also liked the idea. They could depend on
their working wives still being free enough to pay attention to them as well
as the children.
The project went ahead despite some of the protests. Here in BC, in order
to keep our female professionals, they are making it possible for them to
juggle work and home. They can do both and are doing it.
Heidi

You're right Heidi: Society is still in denial about the cost
of women's labor (as compared to men's labor, which is a net
benefit.)

Imagine if society didn't have to expend so many resources
for the welfare state and to handhold women in the workplace.
Canada would probably have it's own space program with
the surplus.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Andre Lieven]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by r***@pdq.net
I think society will eventually face the fact that training women
expensively for jobs they do not actually intend to peform is a dead
weight burden to the rest of us.

I woudn't bank on it. I'll give you an example of what happened in my area.
The women wanted their own women's hospital to deal with all their female
health related issues.

Is there any doubt what would be said, if a hospital for all MEN'S health
issues were suggested ?

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
This hospital is staffed by women. They've got
female nurses, female doctors, female specialists. They've arranged their
worktime to allow for family obligations, too. They've got a significant
staff of part-timers and flex-time healthcare workers. It's a hospital for
women, by women. It's supported by the Provincial and Federal tax-payers,

IOW, enforced contributions...

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
plus premiums paid by tax-payers themselves.
There was some contraversy about building this centre. Some members of the
public objected because they believed it is was sexist.

How amazing ! A medical centre that *discriminates on the basis of sex*
being called sexist.... Well, thats at least accurate... It IS sexist.

But, its the kind of sexist that WomenFirster *bigots* like...

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Other people
supported it. The community in which this women's hospital exists is within
a predominately conservative area and is also part of the bible belt.
Church ladies were the driving force behind effort. Female health-care
providers also supported the scheme because it allowed them to balance work
with family life. A lot of men also liked the idea.

No proof offered ? Cowshit fact free claim fails.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
They could depend on
their working wives still being free enough to pay attention to them as well
as the children.

But, could they depend on getting *equal* benefits ? Of course not...

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
The project went ahead despite some of the protests. Here in BC, in order
to keep our female professionals, they are making it possible for them to
juggle work and home. They can do both and are doing it.

IOW, for the same cost, subsidised, of training, they are doing far LESS
work than men...

And, WomenFirster BIGOTS call that " equality "... Ptui !

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Heidi

You're right Heidi: Society is still in denial about the cost
of women's labor (as compared to men's labor, which is a net
benefit.)

Indeed.

Post by PolishKnight
Imagine if society didn't have to expend so many resources
for the welfare state and to handhold women in the workplace.

Quite. Imagine if it were MANdated that women get EQUAL benefits to those
of men.

So, no post-coital rights to decline legal parenthood for men ? None
for women, too.

No men's only medical care facilities ? No women's only ones, either.

We all know that WomenFirster misandrists would *howl* against that
real equality...

Post by PolishKnight
Canada would probably have it's own space program with
the surplus.

Sure. We'd only need, say, ten billion a year. Femicentricism must cost
dozens of time that sum. Starting, in this case, with sexist medical
faciltiies... Paid for by *men's* taxes...

Andre

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I met two middle class, young women (20 something) who were frustrated
that their husband didn't work harder so she could "sacrifice"
her career to stay at home. See the problem with that attitude?

Ya...and I'm willing to bet those marriages will fail.

Post by PolishKnight
I have seen numerous articles to advice columns with men
complaining their wives were trying to sneak into a SAH
mother role and not go back to work after maternity leave.

And what was the response to these concerns? Were those complaints also
done anonomously? Did the advice giver admonish these men for their lack of
duty to support wife and kids? Did the advice giver attempt to shame these
men?

I'm willing to be this issue is not discussed to a large degree in the
public media because the men might feel it's simply too shameful. It makes
them look like losers and they're not too keen on having that kind of image
broadcast all over the place. Men do have pride....or at least I'm thinking
*most* men do.

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I met two middle class, young women (20 something) who were frustrated
that their husband didn't work harder so she could "sacrifice"
her career to stay at home. See the problem with that attitude?

Ya...and I'm willing to bet those marriages will fail.

The women didn't seem overly bitter. They laughed when
I pointed out to them that it was silly to expect
a man to work hard for them to "sacrifice". They said
they'd give it some thought.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
I have seen numerous articles to advice columns with men
complaining their wives were trying to sneak into a SAH
mother role and not go back to work after maternity leave.

And what was the response to these concerns? Were those complaints also
done anonomously? Did the advice giver admonish these men for their lack of
duty to support wife and kids? Did the advice giver attempt to shame these
men?

I don't think the advice giver tried to shame the men because
they usually try to treat people who write in for advice with
respect. Complaints are done anonymously even if the person
isn't ashamed mostly to provide a forum for the advice
provider to remain neutral.

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm willing to be this issue is not discussed to a large degree in the
public media because the men might feel it's simply too shameful. It makes
them look like losers and they're not too keen on having that kind of image
broadcast all over the place. Men do have pride....or at least I'm thinking
*most* men do.
Heidi

From the tone, they sounded as if they were "liberated" men
who expected that women should pull their own weight.
They said they went into the marriage expecting she wouldn't
quit her job and felt betrayed or disappointed that she
changed her mind.

Are women who stay in their career and don't become
full-time SAH moms "losers" or bad mothers?

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
Are women who stay in their career and don't become
full-time SAH moms "losers" or bad mothers?

That would depend on what group of people one is talking to. Some women's
groups believe working mothers are indeed bad mothers. Some men even think
that. Other groups don't necessarily believe the same. Mothers are
receiving mixed messages. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

My advice...do what you think is best and hang around with the folks who
support your decision. ;-)

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
Are women who stay in their career and don't become
full-time SAH moms "losers" or bad mothers?

That would depend on what group of people one is talking to. Some women's
groups believe working mothers are indeed bad mothers. Some men even think
that. Other groups don't necessarily believe the same. Mothers are
receiving mixed messages. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

That's the problem with trying to "have it all". :-)

Post by Heidi Graw
My advice...do what you think is best and hang around with the folks who
support your decision. ;-)
Heidi

As compared to doing what something thinks is worst? :-)

regards,
PolishKnight

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.
Census figures show 54 percent of mothers with a graduate or
professional degree no longer work full time. In 2003 and 2004 Hirshman
interviewed about 30 women whose wedding announcements had appeared in
The New York Times in 1996 and who had had children. Five of the women
were working full time, and 10 were working part time. The rest were not
working at all."

(Denise) It's not alarming that women are leaving the work force. It
is alarming that attention to this issue always focuses on it as if it
were purely women's decision and completely ignores those people -- men
-- who are, according to many, supposed to make it possible for women
to have the choice to leave the work force. I've got an essay called
"Stay-at-home-moms and the neglected men's perspective" up at
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/dnoe.

[JayR]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.
Census figures show 54 percent of mothers with a graduate or
professional degree no longer work full time. In 2003 and 2004 Hirshman
interviewed about 30 women whose wedding announcements had appeared in
The New York Times in 1996 and who had had children. Five of the women
were working full time, and 10 were working part time. The rest were not
working at all."

(Denise) It's not alarming that women are leaving the work force. It
is alarming that attention to this issue always focuses on it as if it
were purely women's decision and completely ignores those people -- men
-- who are, according to many, supposed to make it possible for women
to have the choice to leave the work force. I've got an essay called
"Stay-at-home-moms and the neglected men's perspective" up at
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/dnoe.

"The Great American Stay-at-Home Wives Conspiracy" by B. Scott Taylor
and Dan Merchant.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0975551906/sr=8-1/qid=1140727505/ref=sr_1_1/102-2803639-5144138?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[Heidi Graw]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
(Denise) It's not alarming that women are leaving the work force. It
is alarming that attention to this issue always focuses on it as if it
were purely women's decision and completely ignores those people -- men
-- who are, according to many, supposed to make it possible for women
to have the choice to leave the work force. I've got an essay called
"Stay-at-home-moms and the neglected men's perspective" up at
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/dnoe.

Denise, this decision to stay at home or not are private marital issues. A
couple may or may not quibble over these things. Then once a decision is
made, it's the women making those public statements that they've chosen to
be those stay-at-home moms. In a way these women are claiming, "See? I've
got a hubby who can support his wife and children....neener, neener,
neener..."

So, just what are these men to say to the public? "No, I don't agree with
my wife's decision. I don't want to support my wife and the kids all by
myself. Her decision puts an onerous burden upon me. I can't handle it?"

There are men who do have pride! They don't particularly want it made
publically known they are unable to support their wives and children. There
are also men who believe supporting wife and kids puts them at a higher
status above other men. "See? I can afford to support wife and kids. I'm
better than you are, neener, neener, neener..."

I can understand why most men would object to media attention about their
inability and unwillingess to support wives and children on their own. It
can be viewed by others as an admission of failure, inadequacies, etc.
Instead, they'll succumb and cave in to their wives' choice and will try to
do the best they can.

Is it fair? I don't think so. I believe the choice of whether or not to
stay-at-home must be a *mutual* agreement that is *willingly* and
*voluntarily* entered into without using coersion or dictatorial measures.
And if a husband should publically claim his wife coerced him, how might the
public and other men look at that?

It may be that men are not talking about the discussion that led to their
wives being those at-home-moms because they fear the shame that might be
attached not being up to the challenge.

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
(Denise) It's not alarming that women are leaving the work force. It
is alarming that attention to this issue always focuses on it as if it
were purely women's decision and completely ignores those people -- men
-- who are, according to many, supposed to make it possible for women
to have the choice to leave the work force. I've got an essay called
"Stay-at-home-moms and the neglected men's perspective" up at
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/dnoe.

Denise, this decision to stay at home or not are private marital issues.

Since when is marriage "private?" :-)

Feminists for some time have argued that the state should bankroll
women's decisions to have children or to penalize men during divorce
for having
their wife "sacrifice" their job to stay at home (even if she demanded
it.)

Post by Heidi Graw
A
couple may or may not quibble over these things. Then once a decision is
made, it's the women making those public statements that they've chosen to
be those stay-at-home moms. In a way these women are claiming, "See? I've
got a hubby who can support his wife and children....neener, neener,
neener..."

Indeed! When I was dating, I _never_ encountered a woman's libber who
would go on and on about equality because they were terrified I might
take them up on it and let them pick up the check. :-) In a
post-feminist
world, the ability to get an abortion or high paying fortune 500 job
are
useless abstractions for most women as compared to finding one
of the dwinding supply of men who meet up to 1950's standards...

Post by Heidi Graw
So, just what are these men to say to the public? "No, I don't agree with
my wife's decision. I don't want to support my wife and the kids all by
myself. Her decision puts an onerous burden upon me. I can't handle it?"

They could say that they didn't want her to leave her job but she
begged and pleaded to be supported. This would undermine the
Friedan case that the women are "sacrificing" anything or that
men want to chain women barefoot to the sink.

Instead, the men's silence allows those who want to believe that men
just LOVE working hard to pay the bills unconditionally to continue
living
in that fantasy world for a little while longer.

Post by Heidi Graw
There are men who do have pride! They don't particularly want it made
publically known they are unable to support their wives and children. There
are also men who believe supporting wife and kids puts them at a higher
status above other men. "See? I can afford to support wife and kids. I'm
better than you are, neener, neener, neener..."

If that was the case, then the men could have still appeared and put
on a maucho act as I've seen some insecure men do in the past.

Post by Heidi Graw
I can understand why most men would object to media attention about their
inability and unwillingess to support wives and children on their own. It
can be viewed by others as an admission of failure, inadequacies, etc.
Instead, they'll succumb and cave in to their wives' choice and will try to
do the best they can.

I don't think most men mind, really. If the man is that insecure, he's
going to be in denial. Most men don't fear, or gravitate, towards
Oprah-style media circuses.

Post by Heidi Graw
Is it fair? I don't think so. I believe the choice of whether or not to
stay-at-home must be a *mutual* agreement that is *willingly* and
*voluntarily* entered into without using coersion or dictatorial measures.
And if a husband should publically claim his wife coerced him, how might the
public and other men look at that?

Pretty much with the same dismissive attitude today towards men
who complain about the unfairness in divorce court or hiring.

Post by Heidi Graw
It may be that men are not talking about the discussion that led to their
wives being those at-home-moms because they fear the shame that might be
attached not being up to the challenge.
Heidi

Perhaps. It's also likely that the women cried and moaned and the men
felt sorry for them which is what the women didn't want exposed on
national TV either.

Heidi, if the men had something to hide, do you REALLY, SINCERELY think
that the media wouldn't smell blood and drag these men in by their
fingernails? Hmmm?

regards,
PolishKnight

[Viking]

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.

But not for everyone else? Not for society?? Damn slacker females. Why
are the men who have to support them for their "choices" (and it's all
about females' choices, isn't it?) never discussed?? Females just take
joke jobs, if anything.

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.

But not for everyone else? Not for society??>>

(Denise) There is nothing "tragic" about this trend. It may mean fewer
abused children as kids are often at risk from poorly paid and trained
day care workers as well as babysitters who, unlike parents have no
longterm investment in the children. It is not a tragedy for mothers
who may enjoy the work of caring for their young 24/7 more than they
would like any other job.


Damn slacker females. Why

are the men who have to support them for their "choices" (and it's all
about females' choices, isn't it?) never discussed?? Females just take
joke jobs, if anything.

(Denise) Here we are in agreement. Men, so often derided as "pigs" and
"beasts," are supposed work hard at their jobs, whether they like them
or not, in order to make women's choices possible yet their POV is
rarely even considered! Too many commentators treat it as simply a
decision to be made by women. I write about this in "Stay-at-home-moms
and the neglected men's perspective" that is up at my blog at
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/dnoe.

[Viking]

Thanks Denise, for your comments of reason. Always a treat to read
what you have to say.

[w***@yahoo.com]

"Statistically there is no difference in the happiness levels of the
children whose mothers work and the children whose mothers stay at
home, she said."

Why did this statement go unchallenged in the article? Theere was a
study a few years back showing kids in daycare had higher levels of
anxiety and became more problematic when in school.

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by Viking
Thanks Denise, for your comments of reason. Always a treat to read
what you have to say.

(Denise) And thank YOU, Viking. If you find it a treat to read what I
have to say, why don't you visit my blog or some of the stories I've
got up at www.crimelibrary.com or www.crimemagazine.com?

[Grizzlie Antagonist]

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!

This is too funny for words! Remember how narrow-minded and
chauvinistic traditionalist men were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how narrow-minded and
chauvinistic traditionalist men were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

(Denise) And today the man who objects to his wife leaving the work
force is frequently derided as selfish and materialistic. While the
man who WANTS his wife to leave the work force is still criticized as
"narrow-minded and chauvinistic."

[Andre Lieven]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how narrow-minded and
chauvinistic traditionalist men were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

(Denise) And today the man who objects to his wife leaving the work
force is frequently derided as selfish and materialistic. While the
man who WANTS his wife to leave the work force is still criticized as
"narrow-minded and chauvinistic."

As Feminism is nothing more than a movement for women to be IRresponsible,
it logically follows that it demands that it's brain damaged adherants
" Always Blame The Nearest Man ! ".

No news there...

Andre

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how narrow-minded and
chauvinistic traditionalist men were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

(Denise) And today the man who objects to his wife leaving the work
force is frequently derided as selfish and materialistic. While the
man who WANTS his wife to leave the work force is still criticized as
"narrow-minded and chauvinistic."

As Feminism is nothing more than a movement for women to be IRresponsible,
it logically follows that it demands that it's brain damaged adherants
" Always Blame The Nearest Man ! ".
No news there...
Andre

(Denise) I've heard men speak disparagingly of "men who don't want
their wives to work." At any rate, do you regard mothers of young
children as irresponsible if they don't care for the child full-time if
the husband is financially able to support them? Or do you regard them
as irresponsible for depending on their husband's income rather than
sharing the family's economic load by returning to work after the baby
is born?
These are questions. I am interested in your opinions and I'm
sorry that you have formed such an antipathy to me and regard me as an
enemy. I am not.

[Andre Lieven]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how narrow-minded and
chauvinistic traditionalist men were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

(Denise) And today the man who objects to his wife leaving the work
force is frequently derided as selfish and materialistic. While the
man who WANTS his wife to leave the work force is still criticized as
"narrow-minded and chauvinistic."

As Feminism is nothing more than a movement for women to be IRresponsible,
it logically follows that it demands that it's brain damaged adherants
" Always Blame The Nearest Man ! ".
No news there...
Andre

(Denise) I've heard men speak disparagingly of "men who don't want
their wives to work."

Now, ask The Next Question: Who raised those men to feel that way ?

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
At any rate, do you regard mothers of young
children as irresponsible if they don't care for the child full-time if
the husband is financially able to support them?

Yep.

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Or do you regard them
as irresponsible for depending on their husband's income rather than
sharing the family's economic load by returning to work after the baby
is born?

Yep.

Or, if women so badly want to stay at home and be *supported*, then they
OWE gratitude and a host of reciprocating priviliges back to the kind
men who allow the women The Easier Life...

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
These are questions. I am interested in your opinions and I'm
sorry that you have formed such an antipathy to me and regard me as an
enemy. I am not.

Your stated views show that you are a WomenFirster. <shrug>

Andre

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by Andre Lieven
Your stated views show that you are a WomenFirster. <shrug>
Andre

(Denise) Which of them? This is a sincere question for I am quite
sincerely baffled.

[Andre Lieven]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Andre Lieven
Your stated views show that you are a WomenFirster. <shrug>
Andre

(Denise) Which of them? This is a sincere question for I am quite
sincerely baffled.

How about your continual posting of *women* topics to soc.MEN ?

A more men oriented post on this topic might start with: " The
Husband Dilemna; Do all the wage work or... "

This *ain't* soc.mommies...

Andre

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how narrow-minded and
chauvinistic traditionalist men were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

(Denise) And today the man who objects to his wife leaving the work
force is frequently derided as selfish and materialistic. While the
man who WANTS his wife to leave the work force is still criticized as
"narrow-minded and chauvinistic."

As Feminism is nothing more than a movement for women to be IRresponsible,
it logically follows that it demands that it's brain damaged adherants
" Always Blame The Nearest Man ! ".
No news there...
Andre

(Denise) I've heard men speak disparagingly of "men who don't want
their wives to work." At any rate, do you regard mothers of young
children as irresponsible if they don't care for the child full-time if
the husband is financially able to support them? Or do you regard them
as irresponsible for depending on their husband's income rather than
sharing the family's economic load by returning to work after the baby
is born?
These are questions. I am interested in your opinions and I'm
sorry that you have formed such an antipathy to me and regard me as an
enemy. I am not.

[PolishKnight]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how narrow-minded and
chauvinistic traditionalist men were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

(Denise) And today the man who objects to his wife leaving the work
force is frequently derided as selfish and materialistic. While the
man who WANTS his wife to leave the work force is still criticized as
"narrow-minded and chauvinistic."

As Feminism is nothing more than a movement for women to be IRresponsible,
it logically follows that it demands that it's brain damaged adherants
" Always Blame The Nearest Man ! ".
No news there...
Andre

(Denise) I've heard men speak disparagingly of "men who don't want
their wives to work." At any rate, do you regard mothers of young
children as irresponsible if they don't care for the child full-time if
the husband is financially able to support them? Or do you regard them
as irresponsible for depending on their husband's income rather than
sharing the family's economic load by returning to work after the baby
is born?

Hello Denise,

In the good old days, gender roles were a lot simpler. Granted, women
and
men both felt that they weren't flexible enough, but at the same time
people knew what to expect of each other.

For honest men and women, it can be difficult figuring out what they're
reasonably expected to do. Men face legal sanctions if they
encourage or accept a career woman quitting her job to become
a SAH housewife. If they don't succeed as breadwinners, they
are almost universally viewed as losers.

For women as well, it's difficult to find men (especially young men)
ready for the role as breadwinner. If she's a career woman, she has
no reassurance that she won't be subject to unwinnable double
standards herself.

For most couples, the man is expected to remain competitive with
with wife. He doesn't have to be able to support her as a SAH wife
(and most women don't want this regardless, forever) and these
men also expect the woman to pull her own weight. They both
may, even despite having made these choices, still resent them
and view their wageearning wife with some cynacism for not living
up to full traditional roles while the wife looks down upon him for
not fully supporting her. This may also explain why relationships
in the states are so volatile today.

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
These are questions. I am interested in your opinions and I'm
sorry that you have formed such an antipathy to me and regard me as an
enemy. I am not.

One of the things I hope should distinguish men from women is
men's ability to emotionally distance themselves somewhat from
their opinons and experiences. It should allow the men
to be more intellectually flexible. That apparently isn't always
the case. (Not directed towards Andre specifically, I see
it quite a bit on this forum and it's interesting.)

regards,
PolishKnight

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how narrow-minded and
chauvinistic traditionalist men were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

(Denise) And today the man who objects to his wife leaving the work
force is frequently derided as selfish and materialistic. While the
man who WANTS his wife to leave the work force is still criticized as
"narrow-minded and chauvinistic."

As Feminism is nothing more than a movement for women to be IRresponsible,
it logically follows that it demands that it's brain damaged adherants
" Always Blame The Nearest Man ! ".
No news there...
Andre

(Denise) I've heard men speak disparagingly of "men who don't want
their wives to work." At any rate, do you regard mothers of young
children as irresponsible if they don't care for the child full-time if
the husband is financially able to support them? Or do you regard them
as irresponsible for depending on their husband's income rather than
sharing the family's economic load by returning to work after the baby
is born?

Hello Denise,
In the good old days, gender roles were a lot simpler. Granted, women
and
men both felt that they weren't flexible enough, but at the same time
people knew what to expect of each other.
For honest men and women, it can be difficult figuring out what they're
reasonably expected to do. Men face legal sanctions if they
encourage or accept a career woman quitting her job to become
a SAH housewife. If they don't succeed as breadwinners, they
are almost universally viewed as losers.

(Denise) This can be a tough row to how indeed. Being the sole
provider may mean that a man takes a dangerous job he hates simply
because it pays more. Although greater male strength is also a factor
in men taking this jobs, I believe the pressures on men to support a
family contribute to their being so terribly over-represented among
workers injured and killed on the job. It is also true that being the
family breadwinner can mean spending a great deal of time at work --
leaving them with little time and energy left over to genuinely
particpate in the raising of their children. Thus, they can often
become paychecks to their young rather than parents who directly
influence and mold them. The pressures on men as breadwinners may be a
factor in their cutting ethical corners at work and even committing
crimes. The man who has broken the law to support his family can go to
prison; the wife may still have the material goodies from his
ill-gotten gains. In some ways, the breadwinner role is booby-trapped:
in case of a divorce, the father has little chance of getting custody
since the court will almost automatically award it to the mother, and
be even more likely to award it to her if she has been a SAHM. Again,
the man's hard work as providing separates him from the very children
for whom he is working.

Post by PolishKnight
For women as well, it's difficult to find men (especially young men)
ready for the role as breadwinner. If she's a career woman, she has
no reassurance that she won't be subject to unwinnable double
standards herself.
For most couples, the man is expected to remain competitive with
with wife. He doesn't have to be able to support her as a SAH wife
(and most women don't want this regardless, forever) and these
men also expect the woman to pull her own weight. They both
may, even despite having made these choices, still resent them
and view their wageearning wife with some cynacism for not living
up to full traditional roles while the wife looks down upon him for
not fully supporting her. This may also explain why relationships
in the states are so volatile today.

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
These are questions. I am interested in your opinions and I'm
sorry that you have formed such an antipathy to me and regard me as an
enemy. I am not.

One of the things I hope should distinguish men from women is
men's ability to emotionally distance themselves somewhat from
their opinons and experiences. It should allow the men
to be more intellectually flexible. That apparently isn't always
the case. (Not directed towards Andre specifically, I see
it quite a bit on this forum and it's interesting.)
regards,
PolishKnight

[PolishKnight]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
(Denise) This can be a tough row to how indeed. Being the sole
provider may mean that a man takes a dangerous job he hates simply
because it pays more. Although greater male strength is also a factor
in men taking this jobs, I believe the pressures on men to support a
family contribute to their being so terribly over-represented among
workers injured and killed on the job. It is also true that being the
family breadwinner can mean spending a great deal of time at work --
leaving them with little time and energy left over to genuinely
particpate in the raising of their children. Thus, they can often
become paychecks to their young rather than parents who directly
influence and mold them. The pressures on men as breadwinners may be a
factor in their cutting ethical corners at work and even committing
crimes. The man who has broken the law to support his family can go to
prison; the wife may still have the material goodies from his
in case of a divorce, the father has little chance of getting custody
since the court will almost automatically award it to the mother, and
be even more likely to award it to her if she has been a SAHM. Again,
the man's hard work as providing separates him from the very children
for whom he is working.

Hello Denise,

Much of this is obvious to anyone who posts here but I'll disagree with
one common perception of men "cutting corners" to make a lot
of money to support families. I don't think that happens that often
but rather just the opposite: "Family men" have a tendency to settle
down and act more ethically and think in the long term. They don't
want to alienate their community. This is why societies used to
encourage men to settle down with "bachelor taxes" and incentives
for men to marry.

The high-income bachelor, on the other hand, may have a greater
tendency to cut corners: They want to generate a lot of income to
impress mistresses and move from place to place.

A lot of emphasis has been placed lately on "primary care".
Certainly, it's not healthy to neglect children but at the same time,
I wonder if a parent (mother or father) who spends a lot of time
at work but clearly cares about their children and setting a good
example for them isn't necessarily better than one who dotes
on the children possibly to the point of obsession. Many of the best
mothers have been WWII widows who worked long hours to
support their children and the fathers who had passed on even
as the child was an infant inspired them to do great things.

This doesn't mean that SAH mothers are "bad", but rather that
if a woman wants to work part-time I don't think it has a huge
negative impact. Career women can also make good mothers
but the problem is they tend to get into it as part of "independence"
and
materialism rather than what men tend to do it for: basic
responsibility.

Many people do apparently "get it" that ultra-successful men
aren't necessarily good father and husband material either:
Doctors and CEO's tend to be egotistical and career focused regardless
of their gender.

Speaking of that, have you seen the latest Bachelor?

regards,
PolishKnight

[k***@gmail.com]

Stay at home, go to work, at the end of the day, we all want to be
happy about our accomplishments, relationships, and most importantly,
our health and wealth as a family unit! I don't know one person who
really enjoys the morning and evening commute. Stay at home moms are
women who either have better skills in rearing children, or are fed up
with all the bs that returns minimal amounts after taxes. Women who
work have been mascinulized (for lack of a better word) by a feminist
movement that took a wrong turn in the eighties. Of course I'm
generalizing; some people actually like the office gossip, the bs with
the boss, and contributing to their RSPs and 401Ks. btw, these two
"investment vehicles" are just savings plans. Check out this link and
you'll see what I mean:

http://dice.myopportunitypro.com/flash2/?SOURCE=turnkey

[Society]

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

Now two generations of post-liberation women
have led us to millions of young women desperate
to beat their way back into those horrid lives
as housewives and mothers with a stick!

Well, Chesterton warned us that women --
especially in groups -- were silly and fickle.
Like a small boy who threatens to run away from
home because he doesn't want to eat his peas,
a typical woman pouts about "patriarchy"*
until she doesn't have it to take care of her
anymore.

NOTES:
* another word for "normality".
--
"We have patriarchy for economic reasons."
This is a confusion of cause and function. ...
[T]o ascribe patriarchy to economic factors
is akin to ascribing the human need to eat
to McDonald's need to make a profit. [E]very
economic system -- communal, slave, feudal,
capitalist, socialist, etc. -- works within
the limits of patriarchy.

Item #5 from "Logic and Fallacies
about Patriarchy" by Steven Goldberg
http://www.debunker.com/texts/fallacy.html

[Grizzlie Antagonist]

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.

Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.

Post by Society
Now two generations of post-liberation women
have led us to millions of young women desperate
to beat their way back into those horrid lives
as housewives and mothers with a stick!
Well, Chesterton warned us that women --
especially in groups -- were silly and fickle.
Like a small boy who threatens to run away from
home because he doesn't want to eat his peas,
a typical woman pouts about "patriarchy"*
until she doesn't have it to take care of her
anymore.

It's all true.

But my point was that a man who says, "a woman's place is in the home"
is regarded these days as a bigot who isn't worthy of any attention.

But now the boot is on the other foot and we have a WOMAN who would
deprive other women of choice.

Ha ha - she feels "threatened". She feels "threatened". I guess
that's why I am so amused by this story - I get to use the "you just
feel threatened" ploy.

Post by Society
* another word for "normality".
--
"We have patriarchy for economic reasons."
This is a confusion of cause and function. ...
[T]o ascribe patriarchy to economic factors
is akin to ascribing the human need to eat
to McDonald's need to make a profit. [E]very
economic system -- communal, slave, feudal,
capitalist, socialist, etc. -- works within
the limits of patriarchy.
Item #5 from "Logic and Fallacies
about Patriarchy" by Steven Goldberg
http://www.debunker.com/texts/fallacy.html

I read Goldberg's original 1973 book not long after it came out at the
UCLA Powell Library. Very informative. It holds some sort of record
in Guinness for the book having been rejected by the most publishers
before seeing the light of day. That's just one more indicia of proof
- as though it were needed - of who is running the show.

Goldberg has amended and revised his book several times since then. I
don't remember whether what you are citing from comes from the original
or from the revisions.

Goldberg seems to prove that patriarchy, for various endemic reasons,
is inevitable in human affairs. But then again, Lionel Tiger appeared
to have proven that matriarchy was inevitable when he wrote "The
Decline of Males". So I don't know what to think.

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society
Now two generations of post-liberation women
have led us to millions of young women desperate
to beat their way back into those horrid lives
as housewives and mothers with a stick!
Well, Chesterton warned us that women --
especially in groups -- were silly and fickle.
Like a small boy who threatens to run away from
home because he doesn't want to eat his peas,
a typical woman pouts about "patriarchy"*
until she doesn't have it to take care of her
anymore.

It's all true.
But my point was that a man who says, "a woman's place is in the home"
is regarded these days as a bigot who isn't worthy of any attention.
But now the boot is on the other foot and we have a WOMAN who would
deprive other women of choice.
Ha ha - she feels "threatened". She feels "threatened". I guess
that's why I am so amused by this story - I get to use the "you just
feel threatened" ploy.

Post by Society
* another word for "normality".
--
"We have patriarchy for economic reasons."
This is a confusion of cause and function. ...
[T]o ascribe patriarchy to economic factors
is akin to ascribing the human need to eat
to McDonald's need to make a profit. [E]very
economic system -- communal, slave, feudal,
capitalist, socialist, etc. -- works within
the limits of patriarchy.
Item #5 from "Logic and Fallacies
about Patriarchy" by Steven Goldberg
http://www.debunker.com/texts/fallacy.html

I read Goldberg's original 1973 book not long after it came out at the
UCLA Powell Library. Very informative. It holds some sort of record
in Guinness for the book having been rejected by the most publishers
before seeing the light of day. That's just one more indicia of proof
- as though it were needed - of who is running the show.
Goldberg has amended and revised his book several times since then. I
don't remember whether what you are citing from comes from the original
or from the revisions.
Goldberg seems to prove that patriarchy, for various endemic reasons,
is inevitable in human affairs. But then again, Lionel Tiger appeared
to have proven that matriarchy was inevitable when he wrote "The
Decline of Males". So I don't know what to think.>>

(Denise) As Warren Farrell shows in "They Myth of Male Power," they're
both wrong. The perception of society as a "patriarchy" comes from
placing too much emphasis on formal power. Certainly formal power
tends to be concentrated in male hands but a society that frequently
places more value on women's lives than men's -- ie, the Titanic --
which has always been true of Western society, cannot properly be
called a "patriarchy" but, as Farrell says, "bisexist, consisting of
both patriarchal and matriarchal elements."

[Jill]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Just what are you basing the average husband as being "the boss" of
the wife on?

That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.

IF (Big IF) there is a "boss" of the wife in the home, Denise, it is
the children. While teenagers want to run things in the home and
often rebel, they still don't have the clout of a parent, even an
ineffectual mother backed by an even more ineffectual father because
money is still the ultimate power and teenagers lack money.

However, as has been so often noted on this NG, smaller children are
an even more poignant example of "bosses" without power. No infant or
toddler has ever fired their mother for being neglectful, incompetent,
or lazy. In a nutshell, the wife/mother IS the boss of the family and
the father is just the hapless guy who pays her and her offsprings'
bills.

[PolishKnight]

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Just what are you basing the average husband as being "the boss" of
the wife on?
That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.

Hello Jill!

I loved to bash the Cosby show because it was so incredibly
unrealistic. The father and mother were both successful
professionals who rarely were seen working. The same with
the children: They were supposedly going to medical and
law school but never were studying. (I guess this is the
same as you never see people to go the bathroom or
watch television on, er, television. :-)

My point is that what resonates with viewers isn't necessarily
what's real, but rather what the person thinks is real
or wants to pretend is real, or what they hope to be real.
Commericals: Even moreso. Guys who drink beer having
the Swedish bikini team drop by to say hello, for example.
(Kind of ironic for Sweden to be the ideal for femininity
for the states back then :-)

Post by Jill
IF (Big IF) there is a "boss" of the wife in the home, Denise, it is
the children. While teenagers want to run things in the home and
often rebel, they still don't have the clout of a parent, even an
ineffectual mother backed by an even more ineffectual father because
money is still the ultimate power and teenagers lack money.
However, as has been so often noted on this NG, smaller children are
an even more poignant example of "bosses" without power. No infant or
toddler has ever fired their mother for being neglectful, incompetent,
or lazy. In a nutshell, the wife/mother IS the boss of the family and
the father is just the hapless guy who pays her and her offsprings'
bills.

I remember a time when the parents were the boss and
the children did chores. That's considered antiquated
today. Much of the rebellion we see today, I imagine,
for rebellion's sake probably comes from the very nature
of the family life today where children are expected to
leave ASAP both for the child's sake and for the parents who
want to move onto retiremrent. In Europe, it's not uncommon
to see children still living with their parent in their early
30's.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Andre Lieven]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Just what are you basing the average husband as being "the boss" of
the wife on?
That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.

Hello Jill!
I loved to bash the Cosby show because it was so incredibly
unrealistic. The father and mother were both successful
professionals who rarely were seen working. The same with
the children: They were supposedly going to medical and
law school but never were studying. (I guess this is the
same as you never see people to go the bathroom or
watch television on, er, television. :-)

Actually, you do see both. One rather then-unique point about
" All In The Family " was that their toilet was often heard,
loudly, at the most inopportune times, because previous sitcoms
had all ignored the existance of the bathroom.

Post by PolishKnight
My point is that what resonates with viewers isn't necessarily
what's real, but rather what the person thinks is real
or wants to pretend is real, or what they hope to be real.

In degrees, but not over the big stuff. This is what comics
refer to as the " ha... Oh, I hear you, bro " moment, when
the audience realises that the joke is one that IS real in
the audience's lives. It may not be a clone, as teevee does
tend to show us nicer than average looking people, usually
with less/no money making life stresses.

But, the real depicted situations, as well described in
" Spreading MIsandry; The Teaching Of Contempt For Men In
Popular Culture ", Nathanson & Young, are fairly close to
what is real for most of their audiences.

Post by PolishKnight
Commericals: Even moreso. Guys who drink beer having
the Swedish bikini team drop by to say hello, for example.
(Kind of ironic for Sweden to be the ideal for femininity
for the states back then :-)

Its the same old message of " men, you are NOTHING with women
( Your superiors ) unless you get our product. "

If women were really equal to men in power and responsibility,
that message would be impossible to sell to men. So, your
point only proves Jill's.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill
IF (Big IF) there is a "boss" of the wife in the home, Denise, it is
the children. While teenagers want to run things in the home and
often rebel, they still don't have the clout of a parent, even an
ineffectual mother backed by an even more ineffectual father because
money is still the ultimate power and teenagers lack money.
However, as has been so often noted on this NG, smaller children are
an even more poignant example of "bosses" without power. No infant or
toddler has ever fired their mother for being neglectful, incompetent,
or lazy. In a nutshell, the wife/mother IS the boss of the family and
the father is just the hapless guy who pays her and her offsprings'
bills.

I remember a time when the parents were the boss and
the children did chores. That's considered antiquated
today.

Sure, because it is. There are books on the topic that point
out that the very concept of " teenagehood " is really a post
WW2 creation. So, once again, Jill's point is correct.

Post by PolishKnight
Much of the rebellion we see today, I imagine,
for rebellion's sake probably comes from the very nature
of the family life today where children are expected to
leave ASAP both for the child's sake and for the parents who
want to move onto retiremrent.

This doesn't compute. When the average age of first parenthood
was under 30, it then figures that said child would be 20 when
the parents were still under 50. As that leaves retirement still
15 plus years off, this is contrafactual.

Post by PolishKnight
In Europe, it's not uncommon
to see children still living with their parent in their early
30's.

Mark, you haven't been much paying attention to the ongoing
trend of the same thing going on in North America, eh ?

Heck, even the NY Times did a front page story on adult
kids moving in with parents who live in over 50 communities,
and its being that common here.

I've even seen national teevee ads with that scenario.
" Can't get the adult kids to move out ? Stop cooking
with cheese !!! "

Andre

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Andre Lieven
I've even seen national teevee ads with that scenario.
" Can't get the adult kids to move out ? Stop cooking
with cheese !!! "

Yes, this ad assumes that parents want their adult children to leave home.
It also assumes that the adult sons depicted in this ad are not at all
contributing to the household...that they're useless freeloaders. It
attempts to shame adult men into leaving their aging parents to their own
devices. Adult men are to abandon the elderly and leave them to the care of
the State and other social support services.

Social support and health agencies have a much vested interest in seeing to
it they have a steady supply of hapless elderly folks off whom to make their
living. Expect to see more of their shaming techniques as the years roll
by.

Some of those old age homes in my area charge $3,000 per month for a small
room that the elderly are not even allowed to decorate with their own
personal stuff that is of sentimental value. They're not allowed to bring
with them their favorite chair or hang portraits on the walls. Visitations
are limited. Imo, this amounts to elder abuse.

I also come across all sorts of criticism from locals when they see
immigrants bringing with them the elderly parents. They all live in one
house. The married adult children take care of their parents...yet, they're
being criticised for it.

What these immigrants are doing is going against Western norms which has it
that the home is supposed to contain only husband, wife and children.
No-one else is allowed. Yet, for most cultures around the world this is not
acceptable practise. Grandparents are members of the family, too. As they
age they need care. And who best to provide that care than their own sons
and daughters?

Those old age homes should only be used when and if absolutely necessary and
when sons and daughters truly no longer can cope caring for their elderly
parent's needs. They should be homes of *last resort* and not a matter of
convenience to sons and daughters.

What I find rather hypocritical is that the ones who are most likely to
shame adult children into leaving home are those who promote "family
values."

Heidi

[Jill]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Just what are you basing the average husband as being "the boss" of
the wife on?
That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.

Hello Jill!
I loved to bash the Cosby show because it was so incredibly
unrealistic. The father and mother were both successful
professionals who rarely were seen working. The same with
the children: They were supposedly going to medical and
law school but never were studying. (I guess this is the
same as you never see people to go the bathroom or
watch television on, er, television. :-)

Apples and oranges. I was not discussing schools, jobs, or bathrooms.
I was discussing the way husbands and wives are commonly portrayed in
relation to one another on TV.

FWIW, not only did the Bunkers often flush their toilet but the
Jeffersons often argued in their half bathroom and the children
frequently commented that they had to go to the outhouse on Little
House on the Prairie. In fact such "delicate" matters have been a
part of TV for a long time. All in the Family debuted over 30 years
ago.

Post by PolishKnight
My point is that what resonates with viewers isn't necessarily
what's real, but rather what the person thinks is real
or wants to pretend is real, or what they hope to be real.
Commericals: Even moreso. Guys who drink beer having
the Swedish bikini team drop by to say hello, for example.
(Kind of ironic for Sweden to be the ideal for femininity
for the states back then :-)

In pointing out men's misplaced chivalry towards women I tried very
hard not to be insulting in pointing out another obvious problem men
have in taking crap from women...the fact that so many men will put up
with *anything* from women in the hopes of just getting laid.

But then you went directly to the SEX (beer) commercial as your
example in much the way moths are instinctively drawn to a flame.

Believe it or not, Mark, there are millions of commercials out there
and very, very few of them have bikini clad sex objects in them nor do
they involve the hopes of getting laid built into them in the very
blatant way that those particular beer commercials did. So your use
of that example only backs up my original argument in a round about
manner.

Here's a brief rundown of some examples of TV shows over the last 50
years that show Wife/Mother is at worst an equal co-partner with
Husband/Father or more likely as time goes on portrayed as THE BOSS of
the family.

1950's

Father Knows Best
Leave It To Beaver
Ozzie and Harriet

These shows portray husband and wife as mostly co-partners however one
recent rerun of Leave It To Beaver showed Ward very concerned that
June was working too hard taking care of the house and family. This
even though both sons were in school full time. Ward hires a cleaning
woman for June so June can do...who knows what.

The other more remarkable thing is that the wives in these shows
openly showed love and respect and GRATITUDE towards their husbands
and did not demean or belittle them in private or more importantly in
front of the man's children.

At the same time neither Jim Anderson, nor Ward Cleaver, nor Ozzie
Nelson came in the front door beating their chests and loudly
demanding that supper be on the table waiting for them or that their
laundry wasn't done. None of these wives were ordered about at all by
their "patriarchal" husbands.

1960's

Bewitched
Addams Family
The Munsters
I Dream of Jeannie

Although these shows had some really odd premises, the traditional
husband/wife roles of the 50's persisted in the way those
relationships were portrayed. Husband's and Wives co-partnered and
wives respected their husbands and did not demean them.

One exception in a way is Bewitched. The whole premise of the show
was that Samantha promised to never use witchcraft again when she
married Darren but despite her promise, rarely a show passed by where
she did not break that basic promise to her husband. Also, both Sam
and Jeannie not only used supernatural powers but the mundane female
manipulation ploys that regular women use to get their way.

Still Sam expressed deep love and respect and gratitude to Darren on a
regular basis while even though Jeannie referred to Tony as "Master"
it was clear who was the one in charge and who was the helpless one.

1970's

The Waltons
The Brady Bunch
Little House on the Prairie

Again these spouses co-partnered and mutually displayed respect for
one another however, it was the men who did the sacrificing and
breadwinning for the most part while the women supported their men
much as was the case in the 1950's shows.

The Jeffersons
All in the Family

Both men in these programs were portrayed as loud-mouthed, chest
beating "patriarchs" but if you watch the programs closely you will
note that both men often caved into doing what their wives and family
asked of them.

One episode of All in the Family in the first season really showed
this. Gloria becomes pregnant and Archie is greatly displeased at the
thought of having to support not only Gloria and Mike but now their
baby. Archie complains throughout the show until at the end he begins
thinking about having a grandchild. He comes home with a big stuffed
teddy bear and begins telling Edith how excited he is about having a
grandchild. Edith then tells him Gloria miscarried. Archie goes up
to Gloria's bedroom and comforts her in a way that is truly touching
and sensitive. Also, his great disappointment at losing his
grandchild is evident. No "patriarchal," chest-beating "Boss" would
behave in such a manner.

1980's

Cosby

(portrays spouses as co-parents and equals who love and respect one
another like the earlier shows did)

Roseanne

(also portrays spouses in same manner and Roseanne shows love, respect
and gratitutde towards her husband, Dan, but doesn't show the same to
anyone else in the world)

Married With Children
The Simpsons

Here is where things begin to drastically swing to the opposite side.
These wives are no prizes themselves but they show no respect or
gratitude towards the work and effort their spouses put out in
providing for them and their children. The husbands both are
portrayed as idiots and buffoons with the wives looking a little more
street smart then their husband and the wives are extremely sneaky and
manipulative most of the time.

1990's

Home Improvement
Everyone Loves Raymond

Both of these shows are the extremes to the 1950's. The husbands are
Idiots (Debra's favorite taunt at Raymond) and childish buffoons while
the wives are intellectually superior and must solve every crisis (big
or small) in almost every episode. Ray and Tim wouldn't know when to
come out of the pouring rain if their wives didn't tell them to do so.

Exceptions to Rule in TV shows

Bachelor Father (1950's)
Bonanza (1960's)
Family Affair (1960's)

Each of these shows portrayed fathers/father figures as very wise and
capable of caring for themselves, their homes, and children but ONLY
because there were NO lead female mother/mother figures in the cast.

Commercials

In today's commercials wives fix almost everything in the house, they
decide the best car or house to buy while husbands are inept at
household repairs, cleaning, caring for children or even providing the
most basic care for themselves.

The superior and all-knowing wife must tell the husband which cold
reliever or laxative is the best or what food to eat. Husbands are
portrayed as being so stupid they wouldn't be able to flush a toilet
unless their wife were there giving them step by step instructions on
how to do it.

[PolishKnight]

Post by Jill

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Just what are you basing the average husband as being "the boss" of
the wife on?
That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.

Hello Jill!
I loved to bash the Cosby show because it was so incredibly
unrealistic. The father and mother were both successful
professionals who rarely were seen working. The same with
the children: They were supposedly going to medical and
law school but never were studying. (I guess this is the
same as you never see people to go the bathroom or
watch television on, er, television. :-)

Apples and oranges. I was not discussing schools, jobs, or bathrooms.
I was discussing the way husbands and wives are commonly portrayed in
relation to one another on TV.

Sorry, whenever TV comes up I tend to take the serious level down
a notch. I'm not going to dispute your overall point that the boss
is the wife of the home and this is reflected in TV "reality", but
at the same time I am claiming that TV is a medium of both
fantasy for the viewers and also propoganda on part of the
producers and advertisers.

That doesn't change the fact that TV and the media has incredible
powers to sell stuff and this should be taken seriously.

Post by Jill
FWIW, not only did the Bunkers often flush their toilet but the
Jeffersons often argued in their half bathroom and the children
frequently commented that they had to go to the outhouse on Little
House on the Prairie. In fact such "delicate" matters have been a
part of TV for a long time. All in the Family debuted over 30 years
ago.

Yeah, but come now: The whole point of the toilet flush was to
be deliberately vulgar. It was designed as shock value which
underscores the point that this wasn't part of "normal" sitcom
and television entertainment.

Post by Jill

Post by PolishKnight
My point is that what resonates with viewers isn't necessarily
what's real, but rather what the person thinks is real
or wants to pretend is real, or what they hope to be real.
Commericals: Even moreso. Guys who drink beer having
the Swedish bikini team drop by to say hello, for example.
(Kind of ironic for Sweden to be the ideal for femininity
for the states back then :-)

In pointing out men's misplaced chivalry towards women I tried very
hard not to be insulting in pointing out another obvious problem men
have in taking crap from women...the fact that so many men will put up
with *anything* from women in the hopes of just getting laid.

Agreed. And this is really the men's problem to deal with.

Post by Jill
But then you went directly to the SEX (beer) commercial as your
example in much the way moths are instinctively drawn to a flame.

I don't mind you pointing this out. It's also interesting how these
commercials evolved from the submissive/gorgeous
women being drawn magically to men with beer bellies to the
almost open abuse we see of these poor bastards today such
as the commercial where the woman hits the guy in the head
with a cue ball.

Many beer commercials today now try to emphasize taste
(especially if they have taste.) The swill makers tend to
go for the most insecure men. There oughta be a law...

Post by Jill
Believe it or not, Mark, there are millions of commercials out there
and very, very few of them have bikini clad sex objects in them nor do
they involve the hopes of getting laid built into them in the very
blatant way that those particular beer commercials did. So your use
of that example only backs up my original argument in a round about
manner.

*sigh*. Kind of sad, isn't it? I have a collection of old TV
commercials
on mpg on CD (let me know if you're interested) Most of them are
about smoking, you'll find amusing. Anyways, commercials of
old seem rather pedestrian by today's standards, of course, but
also they didn't have the tension we see in ads today.

Post by Jill
Here's a brief rundown of some examples of TV shows over the last 50
years that show Wife/Mother is at worst an equal co-partner with
Husband/Father or more likely as time goes on portrayed as THE BOSS of
the family.
1950's
Father Knows Best
Leave It To Beaver
Ozzie and Harriet
These shows portray husband and wife as mostly co-partners however one
recent rerun of Leave It To Beaver showed Ward very concerned that
June was working too hard taking care of the house and family. This
even though both sons were in school full time. Ward hires a cleaning
woman for June so June can do...who knows what.

The family ideal of the past was the parents as a rock. I think
producers
back then would be shocked to see all the drama today as we commonly

Post by Jill
The other more remarkable thing is that the wives in these shows
openly showed love and respect and GRATITUDE towards their husbands
and did not demean or belittle them in private or more importantly in
front of the man's children.
At the same time neither Jim Anderson, nor Ward Cleaver, nor Ozzie
Nelson came in the front door beating their chests and loudly
demanding that supper be on the table waiting for them or that their
laundry wasn't done. None of these wives were ordered about at all by
their "patriarchal" husbands.

I think you have forgotten the Honeymooners which is now considered
to be a feminist show with the next door neighbor liberating the wife.
The lead character for that appears to behave similar to Homer.
Also, there's "I love Lucy" where Lucy engages in all kinds of
shenanigans but even there, she does tend to treat her husband
respectively.

Post by Jill
1960's
Bewitched
Addams Family
The Munsters
I Dream of Jeannie
Although these shows had some really odd premises, the traditional
husband/wife roles of the 50's persisted in the way those
relationships were portrayed. Husband's and Wives co-partnered and
wives respected their husbands and did not demean them.

Although it is interesting, don't you think, how Jeannie wanted to
be submissive but her husband kept trying to encourage her to
be liberated? Then again, that was the running joke that's funny
even (and perhaps especially today) with Jeannie begging to be
dominated by him but he keeps saying no.

The Munsters began a trend of the father being a buffoon, literally.
That's I guess where the commies decided in their meetings
to start undermining the family. :-)

Post by Jill
One exception in a way is Bewitched. The whole premise of the show
was that Samantha promised to never use witchcraft again when she
married Darren but despite her promise, rarely a show passed by where
she did not break that basic promise to her husband. Also, both Sam
and Jeannie not only used supernatural powers but the mundane female
manipulation ploys that regular women use to get their way.

In all fairness though, the women in both of these shows in the end
usually messed things up and the husbands played the straight
men (similar to Dezzie in Lucy). In modern stories, it's the men
who are f-ups with the wives bailing them out.

Post by Jill
Still Sam expressed deep love and respect and gratitude to Darren on a
regular basis while even though Jeannie referred to Tony as "Master"
it was clear who was the one in charge and who was the helpless one.

Yeah, but Tony clearly was the master. Really. Literally!!!

He could and sometimes even did put her in the bottle at times.
(Once again, making this funny especially by today's standards.)
He was in charge and even after being married he still, as far as I
know,
held this power which may be the secret of their successful
relationship. :-)

Let's turn this around for a moment and observe some other shows
such as the former Brosnan show (remember) Remington Steele.
In this show, he's emasculated as a good looking boy-toy
while the smart woman solves the crimes. It obviously was
not meant to last. Speaking of Bond, have you heard about this
fru-fru wimp not liking guns? What's next, a Bond that gets
airsick? *sigh* THAT all went downhill after Sean Connery left
but that's another story...

Post by Jill
1970's
The Waltons
The Brady Bunch
Little House on the Prairie
Again these spouses co-partnered and mutually displayed respect for
one another however, it was the men who did the sacrificing and
breadwinning for the most part while the women supported their men
much as was the case in the 1950's shows.

Don't forget "Alice" which was about the long suffering divorced single
mother.

Post by Jill
The Jeffersons
All in the Family
Both men in these programs were portrayed as loud-mouthed, chest
beating "patriarchs" but if you watch the programs closely you will
note that both men often caved into doing what their wives and family
asked of them.

AITF is especially relevent because that was a liberal propoganda
piece with a liberals writing and acting as a strawman in the form
of Bunker. It would be similar to GA, Andre, and me writing
a sitcom and having you star in it (hey, that's not such a bad
idea...) We'll call the character: Lefty. (Wait, she did such
a better job than any actress could!)

Part of the reason I suspect the left didn't want to get too abusive
towards Edith's character was precisely because then it would
have crossed the line and stopped being funny. But I beg to
differ with you (and would like to explore this further), I think
Archie really was the boss of the house from what I could see.
Granted, not a very effective boss (why he didn't toss out meathead
is sheer writing/fiction) but a boss nonetheless.

Post by Jill
One episode of All in the Family in the first season really showed
this. Gloria becomes pregnant and Archie is greatly displeased at the
thought of having to support not only Gloria and Mike but now their
baby. Archie complains throughout the show until at the end he begins
thinking about having a grandchild. He comes home with a big stuffed
teddy bear and begins telling Edith how excited he is about having a
grandchild. Edith then tells him Gloria miscarried. Archie goes up
to Gloria's bedroom and comforts her in a way that is truly touching
and sensitive. Also, his great disappointment at losing his
grandchild is evident. No "patriarchal," chest-beating "Boss" would
behave in such a manner.

What's also interesting is how Gloria in a later TV movie or special
later reveals that she divorced meathead. I would have guessed
that the writers would have him running a Ben And Jerry's franchise
with Gloria.

Post by Jill
1980's
Cosby
(portrays spouses as co-parents and equals who love and respect one
another like the earlier shows did)

Not necessarily. I get the impression that Cosby was a bit buffoonish
by then and the wife was viewed as both running things AND
getting all that career women glory. In other words, the mainstream
feminist fantasy.

Post by Jill
Roseanne
(also portrays spouses in same manner and Roseanne shows love, respect
and gratitutde towards her husband, Dan, but doesn't show the same to
anyone else in the world)

I'll concede this, loosely. Roseanne shows the husband respect
more or less, but I get the impression that she's the "domestic
goddess" and they get along mostly because he's not there
most of the time, yes?

Post by Jill
Married With Children
The Simpsons
Here is where things begin to drastically swing to the opposite side.
These wives are no prizes themselves but they show no respect or
gratitude towards the work and effort their spouses put out in
providing for them and their children. The husbands both are
portrayed as idiots and buffoons with the wives looking a little more
street smart then their husband and the wives are extremely sneaky and
manipulative most of the time.

With MWC, you have a point but that's part of the humor as it also
bashes the notion of the wife as a perfect, innocent victim as well.

Simpsons is a different kettle of fish. I think Marge is portrayed
as having a good heart and genuinely loving her children
and husband and being so unmanipulative, that she often
winds up having to pick up after him. She's almost saintly
which is the problem: It portrays men as bafoons and women
as saints. Recently, they have had a little fun with her by giving
her a gambling addiction and having her pocket Homer's gun
("precious gun..." :-) and poking fun at Lisa's smug liberalism.

Post by Jill
1990's
Home Improvement
Everyone Loves Raymond
Both of these shows are the extremes to the 1950's. The husbands are
Idiots (Debra's favorite taunt at Raymond) and childish buffoons while
the wives are intellectually superior and must solve every crisis (big
or small) in almost every episode. Ray and Tim wouldn't know when to
come out of the pouring rain if their wives didn't tell them to do so.

Agreed.

Post by Jill
Exceptions to Rule in TV shows
Bachelor Father (1950's)
Bonanza (1960's)
Family Affair (1960's)
Each of these shows portrayed fathers/father figures as very wise and
capable of caring for themselves, their homes, and children but ONLY
because there were NO lead female mother/mother figures in the cast.
Commercials
In today's commercials wives fix almost everything in the house, they
decide the best car or house to buy while husbands are inept at
household repairs, cleaning, caring for children or even providing the
most basic care for themselves.
The superior and all-knowing wife must tell the husband which cold
reliever or laxative is the best or what food to eat. Husbands are
portrayed as being so stupid they wouldn't be able to flush a toilet
unless their wife were there giving them step by step instructions on
how to do it.

I have seen a few times where the man does advise and help the wife
get to sleep with a bad cold or cough. I think this also appeals to
the women
who want the men to "mother" them sometimes too. Not arguing
with your point in general though.

I have seen that many advertisers know that they need to connect
positively with their customers if they want to grab sales. They don't

"F" with men too much in trying to sell them auto and home
parts, sports gear, etc.

regards,
PolishKnight

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Just what are you basing the average husband as being "the boss" of
the wife on?

(Denise) He's the "boss" in the sense that he may be considered an
employer of the wife since he is paying the bills and, in effect,
paying her to stay at home and manage the household and raise the
children.

Post by Jill
That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.
IF (Big IF) there is a "boss" of the wife in the home, Denise, it is
the children. While teenagers want to run things in the home and
often rebel, they still don't have the clout of a parent, even an
ineffectual mother backed by an even more ineffectual father because
money is still the ultimate power and teenagers lack money.

(Denise) Yes. The husband is the employer in the sense that he's paying
the wife to do a job. But as I point out, the "boss" isn't there all
the time to monitor work performance when the wife is a fulltime
homemaker.

Post by Jill
However, as has been so often noted on this NG, smaller children are
an even more poignant example of "bosses" without power. No infant or
toddler has ever fired their mother for being neglectful, incompetent,
or lazy. In a nutshell, the wife/mother IS the boss of the family and
the father is just the hapless guy who pays her and her offsprings'
bills.

[Jill]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Just what are you basing the average husband as being "the boss" of
the wife on?

(Denise) He's the "boss" in the sense that he may be considered an
employer of the wife since he is paying the bills and, in effect,
paying her to stay at home and manage the household and raise the
children.

That's absurd. If he stops paying her freight (or even if he doesn't)
she can divorce him and the government will FORCE him to keep paying
her freight at the expense of caring for his own needs. It happens
every day and both spouses understand this to be the case from the
time they marry till the time she boots him out the door.

So if both know this, and if almost everyone else knows this, then it
can only be social blindness or I hate to say it...sexual bigotry on
your part to maintain that wives have no power and husbands have all
of the power whether they are SAH wives or not.

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Jill
That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.
IF (Big IF) there is a "boss" of the wife in the home, Denise, it is
the children. While teenagers want to run things in the home and
often rebel, they still don't have the clout of a parent, even an
ineffectual mother backed by an even more ineffectual father because
money is still the ultimate power and teenagers lack money.

(Denise) Yes. The husband is the employer in the sense that he's paying
the wife to do a job. But as I point out, the "boss" isn't there all
the time to monitor work performance when the wife is a fulltime
homemaker.

Hogwash. He is not paying her to do a job. She is supposed to be
doing the household and caregiving tasks in EXCHANGE for food and room
and board. Marriage is an EXCHANGE when it is properly conducted.
There is NO "boss and their is NO "employee."

However, it is important to look at who is really making the decisions
(big and small) on how to spend money, where to live, what car to buy,
how many children to have, where the kids will be schooled, etc. Most
often it is the wife who makes these final decisions and if a husband
disagrees...she'll see a lawyer and get her way anyway.

Now exactly who is the *real* boss using those parameters?

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Jill
However, as has been so often noted on this NG, smaller children are
an even more poignant example of "bosses" without power. No infant or
toddler has ever fired their mother for being neglectful, incompetent,
or lazy. In a nutshell, the wife/mother IS the boss of the family and
the father is just the hapless guy who pays her and her offsprings'
bills.

[PolishKnight]

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Society

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women
are leaving the work force to stay at home
and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy
not only for the mothers, but ultimately their
children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom
Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American
Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense
debate among mothers."

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The aprons are coming!
This is too funny for words! Remember how
narrow-minded and chauvinistic traditionalist men
were supposed to be when they objected
to the influx of women in the work force?

Uh huh. And remember how feminists embraced
Ira Levin's book _The Stepford Wives_ as some
sort of parable of women's oppression by men?

Yes. Though I think that in 1996, there was a television movie called
The Stepford Husbands, which presumably dared to suggest that women
also idealize and objectify men.
Maybe that was the onset of the great counter-revolution that
Sobolewski promises is coming.

Post by Society
And remember now-deceased Betty Freidan's
description of the stay-at-home woman in her
suburban palace as suffering in a cruel and
oppressive "concentration camp"?

I think that she said "comfortable concentration camp" But yeah.>>

(Denise) At the time period in which she wrote, there were massive
numbers of women at home who had been overeducated, and to a large
extent miseducated, for the role of housewife that they were playing.
Many found themselves utterly at loose ends.
Many others, however, were divinely happy in the role as it allowed
them freedom to set their own hours since the "boss" -- husband -- was
not hovering over them but (usually) at a job where his boss hovered
over him

Just what are you basing the average husband as being "the boss" of
the wife on?

(Denise) He's the "boss" in the sense that he may be considered an
employer of the wife since he is paying the bills and, in effect,
paying her to stay at home and manage the household and raise the
children.

That's absurd. If he stops paying her freight (or even if he doesn't)
she can divorce him and the government will FORCE him to keep paying
her freight at the expense of caring for his own needs. It happens
every day and both spouses understand this to be the case from the
time they marry till the time she boots him out the door.

Hello Jill,

In all fairness, please, I think Denise is saying that in a _healthy_
marital relationship, the wife understands they don't have "equality"
and that the wife should respect the wageearner as the "boss".
Her mentioning that the husband is "paying" the wife to stay at home
through his support is critical since many feminists like to argue
that the women do "unpaid" work which isn't true, of course.

Post by Jill
So if both know this, and if almost everyone else knows this, then it
can only be social blindness or I hate to say it...sexual bigotry on
your part to maintain that wives have no power and husbands have all
of the power whether they are SAH wives or not.

I don't recall her saying the wives had no power. An employee does
have power in the sense that they provide a valuable service otherwise
all employees would be paid next to nothing.

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Jill
That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.
IF (Big IF) there is a "boss" of the wife in the home, Denise, it is
the children. While teenagers want to run things in the home and
often rebel, they still don't have the clout of a parent, even an
ineffectual mother backed by an even more ineffectual father because
money is still the ultimate power and teenagers lack money.

(Denise) Yes. The husband is the employer in the sense that he's paying
the wife to do a job. But as I point out, the "boss" isn't there all
the time to monitor work performance when the wife is a fulltime
homemaker.

Hogwash. He is not paying her to do a job. She is supposed to be
doing the household and caregiving tasks in EXCHANGE for food and room
and board. Marriage is an EXCHANGE when it is properly conducted.
There is NO "boss and their is NO "employee."

Yes Jill, but couldn't the same be said for boss/employee relationships
too? Isn't that an exchange as well?

Denise is actually saying, and correct me if I'm wrong Denise, that
the man as boss is entitled to some kind of service in exchange for
his support. Today, many women argue that the man should pay
the bills and the wife decides what she wants to do and any chores
she does is "unpaid" and a "sacrifice". Her argument undermines
the position of alimony entitlements since an employee is compensated
immediately.

Post by Jill
However, it is important to look at who is really making the decisions
(big and small) on how to spend money, where to live, what car to buy,
how many children to have, where the kids will be schooled, etc. Most
often it is the wife who makes these final decisions and if a husband
disagrees...she'll see a lawyer and get her way anyway.

I beg to disagree.

I know we've had this discussion before, and it's not a pleasant one,
but men do have a choice. They can choose to assert themselves
THROUGHOUT a relationship and not just go along with their wife
and placating her in the hopes of her not making him walk the
plank just for kicks anyway.

I have made serious progress in adjusting people's attitudes,
especially
women's, by dumping women who desperated wanted a man to
support them but when they revealed selfish attitudes I told them
to adjust their attitude. When they didn't, I walked.

There are plenty of opportunities for men to do this. If the woman
wants a diamond, he doesn't have to rush out and buy her a big one
because she might cry or even worse, take a walk. If she demands
he take her out to expensive restaurants, he doesn't have to do so
just to placate her. American women are spoiled because American
men _spoil_ them!!! Let's accept some responsibility here.

A good, decent woman isn't going to decide to divorce a man and
have strife for herself and her children just because he has a set of
balls and says no to her sometimes. But if she is conditioned to
believe otherwise, I don't think even submissive men will be treated
decently.

Post by Jill
Now exactly who is the *real* boss using those parameters?

Whoever has balls or stupidity. The problem is that American
women often have a lot of both nowadays.

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Jill
However, as has been so often noted on this NG, smaller children are
an even more poignant example of "bosses" without power. No infant or
toddler has ever fired their mother for being neglectful, incompetent,
or lazy. In a nutshell, the wife/mother IS the boss of the family and
the father is just the hapless guy who pays her and her offsprings'
bills.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I have made serious progress in adjusting people's attitudes,
especially
women's, by dumping women who desperated wanted a man to
support them but when they revealed selfish attitudes I told them
to adjust their attitude. When they didn't, I walked.

Ya, I walked, too, when I came across men who thought they could be the
boss of me. I never could stand those arrogant self absorbed bossy types.
The guy had to demonstrate at least some minimal level of thoughtfulness.
If the whole evening passed by during which he never bothered to ask my
opinion or asked anything about me, he would not get that second date with
me. I don't play satellite to men who believe they are the centre of the
universe, just as I don't expect the man to be that satellite around me
either.

If men are from Mars and women from Venus, we do not orbit around each
other. We live in seperate worlds, doing our own thang, having dominion
over our own seperate interests. And should the mood strike us, we may even
choose to get together in mixed company and spend our time arguing! We
could also negotiate a peace treaty. ;-)

Heidi

[Grizzlie Antagonist]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I have made serious progress in adjusting people's attitudes,
especially
women's, by dumping women who desperated wanted a man to
support them but when they revealed selfish attitudes I told them
to adjust their attitude. When they didn't, I walked.

Ya, I walked, too, when I came across men who thought they could be the
boss of me. I never could stand those arrogant self absorbed bossy types.
The guy had to demonstrate at least some minimal level of thoughtfulness.
If the whole evening passed by during which he never bothered to ask my
opinion or asked anything about me, he would not get that second date with
me. I don't play satellite to men who believe they are the centre of the
universe, just as I don't expect the man to be that satellite around me
either.
If men are from Mars and women from Venus, we do not orbit around each
other. We live in seperate worlds, doing our own thang,

There you go again, cunt, doing the same two things that you do "best"
- or should I say that you do most repetitively. One of them is
doggedly misspelling certain words in order to give your diatribe some
sort of folksiness in order try to make it more digestible. What
exactly does "ya" mean? What exactly is a "thang"?

And second of all - you're trying again to manufacture a "moral
equivalence" situation where none exists.

Mark said that he dumped women who wanted a man to support them but
wouldn't change their own selfish attitudes.

And you chime back with a "ya" - men are the same way response,
explaining how there were men who were trying to be the "boss" of you.
I have a hard time imagining large numbers of men seeking your company.
But setting aside that reservation for now, you overlooked several
issues, including that of who was paying for the date.

In Mark's example, clearly he was. He states that the women he met
expected him to "support" them, so clearly he was paying - but he
"dumped" them when they would not adjust their selfish attitudes. In
fact, he's clearly describing serious relationships in which he spent
lengthy periods of time paying for the company of ungrateful women.

You, on the other hand, responded by describing men that you spent
minimal periods of time with - a couple of hours or so, and no more,
since they "would not get that second date". So you're not in a
position to say what any of these men are like over an extended period
of time.

And you seemed to have overlooked the little detail of who was paying
for the evening - except that if YOU were paying or even if you were
going "Dutch", you wouldn't have failed to mention that.

The fact is that you ate every quiche roll and drank every bottle of
Tokay that those guys bought for you and probably didn't agonize over
being taken seriously. I have never seen any indication at all that
you are capable of doing or saying anything that a man should take
seriously, and the guy buying your feed might have felt entitled be the
center of attention.

This is NOT the case for the women that expected Mark to support them -
so again, you're trying to create a moral equivalence situation where
none exists.

And as for not asking your opinion or anything about you, I call that
excellent judgment on the part of the men in question. Thomas Edison
said that an advantage of being deaf was all of the bullshit that he
didn't have to listen to, and someone who refrains from asking you a
question is probably thinking along the same lines.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I have made serious progress in adjusting people's attitudes,
especially
women's, by dumping women who desperated wanted a man to
support them but when they revealed selfish attitudes I told them
to adjust their attitude. When they didn't, I walked.

Ya, I walked, too, when I came across men who thought they could be the
boss of me. I never could stand those arrogant self absorbed bossy types.
The guy had to demonstrate at least some minimal level of thoughtfulness.
If the whole evening passed by during which he never bothered to ask my
opinion or asked anything about me, he would not get that second date with
me. I don't play satellite to men who believe they are the centre of the
universe, just as I don't expect the man to be that satellite around me
either.
If men are from Mars and women from Venus, we do not orbit around each
other. We live in seperate worlds, doing our own thang,

There you go again, cunt, doing the same two things that you do "best"
- or should I say that you do most repetitively. One of them is
doggedly misspelling certain words in order to give your diatribe some
sort of folksiness in order try to make it more digestible. What
exactly does "ya" mean? What exactly is a "thang"?
And second of all - you're trying again to manufacture a "moral
equivalence" situation where none exists.
Mark said that he dumped women who wanted a man to support them but
wouldn't change their own selfish attitudes.

...and I dump men who are so self-absorbed, bossy and selfish that they
can't even be bothered to question the very women they are dating.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And you chime back with a "ya" - men are the same way response,
explaining how there were men who were trying to be the "boss" of you.

They're the sort of guys who simply just take over. They're the sort who do
the arranging, the ordering, they only talk about themselves, brag about
what they've got, how they got it, and what they're doing with it. Not once
do they ever ask, "So, what are you into?"

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I have a hard time imagining large numbers of men seeking your company.

I had my fair share. ;-)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But setting aside that reservation for now, you overlooked several
issues, including that of who was paying for the date.

I made it a point to always take enough money to cover the cost of the date
just in case the guy lost his wallet, or he sprung the Dutch idea at the
last minute, or if I was impressed enough with the date, I'd insist *I* pay
for the two of us even though *he* had asked me out. I never went on a date
without taking money of my own along. And if I was caught short on cash,
I'd use my Visa. Taking my own funds also gave me an "out" should that date
turn out a real dud. If he picked me up with his car, I made sure I had
money with me for a taxi. I never allowed myself to be put into a
vulnerable position where I had to rely on that date for anything!

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
In Mark's example, clearly he was. He states that the women he met
expected him to "support" them,

I know. And I've been on dates where the guy thought he could be the boss
of me and that I'd end up totally at his mercy and relying on his goodwill.
I always made sure I had an "out." I wouldn't allow myself to be put in a
position like that.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
so clearly he was paying - but he
"dumped" them when they would not adjust their selfish attitudes.

And I dumped men who were arrogant, bossy and totally self-absorbed. I had
no use for guys like that, no matter how wealthy they were.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
In
fact, he's clearly describing serious relationships in which he spent
lengthy periods of time paying for the company of ungrateful women.
You, on the other hand, responded by describing men that you spent
minimal periods of time with - a couple of hours or so, and no more,
since they "would not get that second date". So you're not in a
position to say what any of these men are like over an extended period
of time.

On a first date, I tend to be a very good listener. This gives me an
opportunity to seize up the guy. If he never once asked me about what I
liked or what I wanted to do, then forget it... I didn't think it was my job
to train these men into conforming to my values. If he wasn't thoughtful of
his own, I was not about to play mommy to such a guy!

(snip)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
This is NOT the case for the women that expected Mark to support them -
so again, you're trying to create a moral equivalence situation where
none exists.

Yes there is: lack of thoughtfulness and lack of reciprocal actions. Mark
identified women on the take, just as I identified men on the take. Mark
didn't care for these women's selfishness and I didn't care much for the
men's self-absorbedness.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And as for not asking your opinion or anything about you, I call that
excellent judgment on the part of the men in question. Thomas Edison
said that an advantage of being deaf was all of the bullshit that he
didn't have to listen to, and someone who refrains from asking you a
question is probably thinking along the same lines.

Then it's just as well that I dumped them. If the man doesn't value what I
have to say, "Fine! Begone!" And as it turned out, I eventually did meet a
man who does value what I value and who believes that what I say has value.
The man I married actually seeks out my opinions on a great number of
things. ;-)

Heidi

[Grizzlie Antagonist]

I'm not going to spin wheels getting into a point by point discussion
of this with you, cunt.

Mark described situations where he spent time and money, apparently a
lot of it, trying to win the affections of a number of women without
being able to change their selfish attitudes.

You're describing bad "first dates" where you never even had to use any
of that "mad money" that you took with you, dates where a guy wined and
dined YOU but where you felt that he paid insufficient attention to
what you had to say - so as a result, these first dates never
materialized into second dates.

Obviously, the comparison is a ridiculous one, since your investment of
time, emotion, and money was nowhere approximate to Mark's, especially
since you were the one being treated.

But you want to gloss over that and insist that your investiment of
time, emotion and money was somehow equivalent to Mark's and that
there's some sort of "moral equivalence" between his unsuccessful
romances and your bad first dates, when that's obviously not the case.

And again, I say that you suffered no loss anyway because the number of
men who would have been impressed by the New Age Norse myth flufff
bunnny feminazi rhetoric that you would have delivered if you'd had a
chance would have been a small number.

Yeah, I know how your story ends. Your story ends with your bringing
out the trophy eunuch that you ended up marrying, leading him out by
the ring in his nose, displaying him to your audience like prize
livestock and saying, "Look, I found one".

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not going to spin wheels getting into a point by point discussion
of this with you, cunt.
Mark described situations where he spent time and money, apparently a
lot of it, trying to win the affections of a number of women without
being able to change their selfish attitudes.

...and this was Mark's mistake: He kept trying to change these women. He
wanted to mold them into the type of woman *he* had in mind. He learned
that was a lost cause. He ended up going overseas to find that right
someone for him.

Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated. If I
saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging around to
try to convert them into *my* way.

I've seen often enough how that kind of tactic leads to nowhere! What I
wanted was someone who didn't require conversion or change in any way! I
wanted to be able to say, "I love you just the way you are!" I didn't want
someone who needed retraining. By the time one is an adult, it's virtually
impossible to change these people. Their behavior patterns tend to be set.

Granted, a profound circumstance may at times change people's behaviors, but
I wasn't about to wait around for some sort of cataclysmic event to take
place. That first date usually gave me a great opportunity to learn what
these men were about. An awful lot is revealed in those few first hours.
If I didn't like what was revealed, that second date simply didn't happen.
I was not about to make excuses for these guys, give them a second chance,
or whatever. If you didn't make a good first impression, then forget it!

Heidi

[Grizzlie Antagonist]

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not going to spin wheels getting into a point by point discussion
of this with you, cunt.
Mark described situations where he spent time and money, apparently a
lot of it, trying to win the affections of a number of women without
being able to change their selfish attitudes.

...and this was Mark's mistake.

And that is not the point, whether it was his mistake or not. You
remind me of some of my male DV clients. I'm talking about guys who
busted up their women inside out. I'd show them some ugly photographs
and ask them why they did this, and they'd point to a scratch on their
face and say, "Well, she hit me first". In their minds, if the woman
struck first, that gave them the right to commit mayhem in "self
defense".

You're taking a bad evening in which you still got wined and dined and
comparing it to a man's version of a bad romance and claiming that you
got hurt also. Whether the man should have invested time, money, and
emotion into the romance in the first place is beside the point.

He ended up going overseas to find that right
someone for him.

And you ended up marrying a neutered marionette puppet. So?

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You're taking a bad evening in which you still got wined and dined and
comparing it to a man's version of a bad romance and claiming that you
got hurt also.

Where did I claim I got hurt? There were no emotional attachments on my
part when it came to those first dates. If the guy was an ass, he was an
ass. Not a big deal. This just meant I wouldn't be accepting a second
date!

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Whether the man should have invested time, money, and
emotion into the romance in the first place is beside the point.

This is what Mark had written:
"I have made serious progress in adjusting people's attitudes,
especially
women's, by dumping women who desperated wanted a man to
support them but when they revealed selfish attitudes I told them
to adjust their attitude. When they didn't, I walked."

Did these women just all of a sudden become selfish during the course of
their relationship with Mark? I doubt it. These women would have
demonstrated that behavior right off the bat. Yet, Mark thought he could
change their behavior. He learned he could not do that. And that lesson
turned out to be a rather expensive one. He actually went bankrupt trying
to change women! Ah well... ;-)

Heidi

[Grizzlie Antagonist]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You're taking a bad evening in which you still got wined and dined and
comparing it to a man's version of a bad romance and claiming that you
got hurt also.

Where did I claim I got hurt?

Cunt, isn't that my point? If you didn't get hurt, then you had no
business bringing up the issue in the first place, did you? You had no
business begging for sympathy, did you? You had no business arguing
how terrible those men were who bought you a meal and a drink without
asking you a question over two hours, if you were not "hurt" by the
experience, did you? You had no business trying to convince anyone
that the behavior of these men was the moral equivalent of the behavior
of women who take and take and don't give anything back, did you?

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You're taking a bad evening in which you still got wined and dined and
comparing it to a man's version of a bad romance and claiming that you
got hurt also.

Where did I claim I got hurt?

Cunt, isn't that my point? If you didn't get hurt, then you had no
business bringing up the issue in the first place, did you?

What makes you think people only bring up issues when they feel hurt? Mark
was merely complaining about those selfish women he had come across. He
didn't say anything about whether or not those women hurt his feelyuns. His
feelings were not the topic under discussion, but rather the focus was on
the bevavior of those women.

And all I did was let him know that walking away is something I did, too,
when it came to arrogant, bossy and self-absorbed men. Whether or not I
felt hurt by their actions isn't the focus of the discussion. As it was, my
feelings were not hurt by these royal arrogancies.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You had no
business begging for sympathy, did you?

LOL...o.k....I think you should stop reading things into my posts that
simply do not exist. LOL...

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You're taking a bad evening in which you still got wined and dined and
comparing it to a man's version of a bad romance and claiming that you
got hurt also.

Where did I claim I got hurt? There were no emotional attachments on my
part when it came to those first dates. If the guy was an ass, he was an
ass. Not a big deal. This just meant I wouldn't be accepting a second
date!

That's cool.

Actually, that's a little bit too cool. I would almost say it's
passive and disinterested. If a man is going out on a date,
and putting up his cold, hard cash, then he's serious enough
to at least express an interest.

For them, this provides an awareness and care that allows them
some power and responsibility in their lives. It's no wonder
that so many cool women, who didn't make a "big deal"
about just waiting for men to pick them up, wound up in their
30's childless before they knew what happened.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Whether the man should have invested time, money, and
emotion into the romance in the first place is beside the point.

"I have made serious progress in adjusting people's attitudes,
especially
women's, by dumping women who desperated wanted a man to
support them but when they revealed selfish attitudes I told them
to adjust their attitude. When they didn't, I walked."

And where in that does it say I spent money on them?

Even so, I gave them feedback which they could use later
to adjust their attitudes rather than walking, without reason,
away and allowing them to draw the wrong conclusion.

Post by Heidi Graw
Did these women just all of a sudden become selfish during the course of
their relationship with Mark? I doubt it. These women would have
demonstrated that behavior right off the bat.

Oh my! Agreed!

Indeed, it's amazing how many women in the states think they
can spot a man's bad character when men have a motivation
to B.S. a woman so his money isn't wasted while women think
a second date is the default. :-)

Post by Heidi Graw
Yet, Mark thought he could
change their behavior. He learned he could not do that.

Oh, I changed their behaviour all right. :-) Maybe not
in the way I would desire but they at least received feedback.

Note that women often do the same thing: I would go out
with women, they would make "the offer", and I would
accept and they'd walk. They hadn't changed my behaviour
(I didn't pay their way) but collectively, such women did
train a lot of men to refuse the offer and "insist" upon
paying.

Granted, my kitty cat probably has more balls than such men.

Post by Heidi Graw
And that lesson
turned out to be a rather expensive one. He actually went bankrupt trying
to change women! Ah well... ;-)

Where did you draw that conclusion? I told you I had gone
bankrupt, but I don't recall saying that was the reason.

tsk tsk.

And as you know, the bankruptcy turned out to be a rather
good thing for me. I had you steaming for weeks. hehehehe.
Women in Australia get a one time $4K for having children,
why should I get some mullah at society's expense? :-)

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You're taking a bad evening in which you still got wined and dined and
comparing it to a man's version of a bad romance and claiming that you
got hurt also.

Where did I claim I got hurt? There were no emotional attachments on my
part when it came to those first dates. If the guy was an ass, he was an
ass. Not a big deal. This just meant I wouldn't be accepting a second
date!

That's cool.
Actually, that's a little bit too cool. I would almost say it's
passive and disinterested. If a man is going out on a date,
and putting up his cold, hard cash, then he's serious enough
to at least express an interest.

Sure, but I couldn't be bought! The guy could have money coming out of
yin-yangs, but if he didn't indicate any level of thoughtfulness and
consideration of me, then I dropped them! I'd much rather be with a
poorer, but more thoughtful man than a rich inconsiderate one! You have to
remember that I have income of my own. The man's money was not something
uppermost on my mind. I could afford to consider the man's
personality...his character. If we were in tune, then that's all that
mattered!

As it was, I actually turned down two very wealthy men in my life...one
owned an apartment building in the West End and another owned an
import/export business. I didn't like their arrogant and bossy behaviors.
If I would have chosen any of these two men to marry, I would have ended up
totally miserable.

Instead, I married a guy who earned a more modest income. He was far more
in tune with me. His attentiveness and easy-going manner was something I
found very endearing. With him I could engage in reciprocal actions...give
and take...and *exchange* of ideas, opinions, etc. We could live together
in harmony!

...and yes, I'm one cool chick married to a hot hunk! He sure as heck can
warm up my tootsies! ;-)

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not going to spin wheels getting into a point by point discussion
of this with you, cunt.
Mark described situations where he spent time and money, apparently a
lot of it, trying to win the affections of a number of women without
being able to change their selfish attitudes.

...and this was Mark's mistake: He kept trying to change these women.

Hello you two!

I hate to disagree with GA (I really do!) but I don't recall saying
I spent a lot of money trying to change women. I recall saying
I had communicated with them. Sometimes I put my money
where my mouth was, sometimes I didn't.

Post by Heidi Graw
He
wanted to mold them into the type of woman *he* had in mind. He learned
that was a lost cause. He ended up going overseas to find that right
someone for him.

Actually, just the opposite: I ultimately changed! I discovered
that a lot of the priorities I had were mistaken including
the notion of "equality". Communication is a two-way street.

I think I could have found someone "right" for me in the states
too, but by then I had met someone overseas. It was just easier
to connect with her even though she was halfway around the world.
In some ways, the distance helped to put the communication
into perspective: That it's something that has to be worked at.
When every word requires thought and consideration, they
become more precious.

The real estate bubble isn't the only bubble popping in
the states. Newspapers are full of articles and books
about the availability of aging professional women desperate
for a breadwinner.

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated. If I
saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging around to
try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

Maybe that doesn't apply to you, but I have seen a lot of women
who have a similar attitude who wind up as targets of men
who wrap such women around their fingers (and brag to us
over beers about it.) Men who bother to play these games
usually have their own insecurities as well.

Generally speaking, outside of those Eharmony commercials,
there will be an adjustment period for two people to
accomodate each other. People need to change along with
life events such as leaving home, going to school, moving
to a new city, etc. Why not have people change to
accomodate the person closest to them?

Post by Heidi Graw
I've seen often enough how that kind of tactic leads to nowhere! What I
wanted was someone who didn't require conversion or change in any way! I
wanted to be able to say, "I love you just the way you are!"

I happen to think that there's a lot of romance (and freedom)
in the other direction: Maybe someone has a lot of quibbles
about someone, but they love them anyway and accomodate those things.

Post by Heidi Graw
I didn't want
someone who needed retraining. By the time one is an adult, it's virtually
impossible to change these people. Their behavior patterns tend to be set.

Which _really_ sucks if the person's behaviour patterns are self
destructive or inadequate, yes?

I'm rather proud of the fact that I've changed significantly
over time. I've grown, learned, acknowledged some mistakes,
tried a number of things, and really gotten a lot out of life!

Heidi, isn't it rather crazy for someone to plan their whole
life based upon their experiences and insights up until
their mid-20's?

For good or ill, people change and grow. It's a question of
whether they'll grow wiser and older or just older.

Post by Heidi Graw
Granted, a profound circumstance may at times change people's behaviors, but
I wasn't about to wait around for some sort of cataclysmic event to take
place. That first date usually gave me a great opportunity to learn what
these men were about. An awful lot is revealed in those few first hours.

Ironically, if I had judged my wife based upon our first
experiences with each other we wouldn't be together.
We had a lot of disasters that almost belong in a comedy!

But... we both recognized that we're good people (as many
third parties like to say about us) and we share the same
goals and ideals. She considered some of my input (and learned
to enjoy Opera) and I learned to keep my nails clipped. :-)

I remember reading "How to get the woman you desire into bed"
and he made a profound point: Many women (and men
for that matter) are incredible: They're attractive,
intelligent, engaging, interesting, and fun. But...
they may not share the same goals in life or they may
have a lousy character.

Post by Heidi Graw
If I didn't like what was revealed, that second date simply didn't happen.
I was not about to make excuses for these guys, give them a second chance,
or whatever. If you didn't make a good first impression, then forget it!
Heidi

With such a charming attitude, it's difficult to understand
why men such as myself didn't want to pursue local North
American women. :-)

Indeed Heidi, it was amazing how women with such an attitude
made such lousy companions themselves to boot (but this
is probably not a coincidence): Lessee,
they would wait around for men to ask them out or just
put an ad in the personal. Then it was six-pack time:
Wait to be picked up and shown a good time. Don't initiate
conversation and if he takes it into a direction she
dislikes, then sulk about it. Offer to pay
(just for herself, of course) with some kind of hidden
secret putdown behind the offer. Or just wait around
for him to foot the bill but without any kind of courtesy
for him doing so (since it's an entitlement.)

Wow! Why wouldn't a man with some self-esteem and worldly
knowledge want to earn a woman like that?

Foreign women on the other hand... well... wow! Lessee:
They would talk (and talk and talk) but not just about
soaps or movies or other neutral nonsense but about
engaging topics such as politics, their interests
(and no, not just partying, drinking, or spending money)
and actually look to see if I was engaged as well.
In the very least, it was interesting just to discuss
the differences in culture: You know, why they call
a Big Mac a Royale with Cheese in France. But also,
maybe, foreigners just are better at relations
than our barbaric ways, quite frankly.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Grizzlie Antagonist]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not going to spin wheels getting into a point by point discussion
of this with you, cunt.
Mark described situations where he spent time and money, apparently a
lot of it, trying to win the affections of a number of women without
being able to change their selfish attitudes.

...and this was Mark's mistake: He kept trying to change these women.

Hello you two!
I hate to disagree with GA (I really do!)

I don't know why. We disagree all the time.

Post by PolishKnight
but I don't recall saying
I spent a lot of money trying to change women. I recall saying
I had communicated with them. Sometimes I put my money
where my mouth was, sometimes I didn't.

I said that you "apparently" spent "a lot" of money, because that's the
impression that I received, but it's a minor point, whether you spent
"a lot" of money or not.

This is the point which the feminazi fluff bunny with the tinfoil Norse
Viking helmet is not getting (either out of calculation or out of
stupidity, I'm not sure which - but at any rate, now you're on notice
that YOU'D better get it).

The point is that she is comparing your investment in a relationship -
requiring some time and some money on women who gave you nothing back -
with her investment in a "first date" - in which she spent two hours
worth of time and received the BENEFIT of some man's money but decided
that the man who had spent it on her was too self-centered to deserve
any additional time - and deciding that the men in HER equation are as
"bad" as the women in YOURS.

It's a phony moral equivalence argument. You have had occasion to spot
these before and to "call" people on it, so I expect you to spot this
one.

On an unrelated matter, there's a magazine circulating through the
Central Valley called HIS Magazine - the target audience being upscale
single males. I thumbed through their last issue and saw that they
interviewed a number of single women. One of the questions involved
height and yes, 72% of them said that it was important that the guy be
taller than they are.

Of course, this is a small number of women in one locale, but if it's a
representative sample of American single women in general, that might
be the REAL reason why you needed to go outside this country to find a
woman to share your life with.

[PolishKnight]

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not going to spin wheels getting into a point by point discussion
of this with you, cunt.
Mark described situations where he spent time and money, apparently a
lot of it, trying to win the affections of a number of women without
being able to change their selfish attitudes.

...and this was Mark's mistake: He kept trying to change these women.

Hello you two!
I hate to disagree with GA (I really do!)

I don't know why. We disagree all the time.

I was joking. Do you still have a sense of humor?

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
but I don't recall saying
I spent a lot of money trying to change women. I recall saying
I had communicated with them. Sometimes I put my money
where my mouth was, sometimes I didn't.

I said that you "apparently" spent "a lot" of money, because that's the
impression that I received, but it's a minor point, whether you spent
"a lot" of money or not.

Question: What did I say give you that impression? ESPECIALLY
when I have a repuation on this forum for being a huge cheapskate?
I was amused at this accusation actually. Next thing I know,
you'll be accusing me of trying out for basketball. :-)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
This is the point which the feminazi fluff bunny with the tinfoil Norse
Viking helmet is not getting (either out of calculation or out of
stupidity, I'm not sure which - but at any rate, now you're on notice
that YOU'D better get it).
The point is that she is comparing your investment in a relationship -
requiring some time and some money on women who gave you nothing back -
with her investment in a "first date" - in which she spent two hours
worth of time and received the BENEFIT of some man's money but decided
that the man who had spent it on her was too self-centered to deserve
any additional time - and deciding that the men in HER equation are as
"bad" as the women in YOURS.
It's a phony moral equivalence argument. You have had occasion to spot
these before and to "call" people on it, so I expect you to spot this
one.

Tell you what: Show a cite from her making this equivalence.
I honestly didn't see it but you have a better sensitivity for this
than I.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
On an unrelated matter, there's a magazine circulating through the
Central Valley called HIS Magazine - the target audience being upscale
single males. I thumbed through their last issue and saw that they
interviewed a number of single women. One of the questions involved
height and yes, 72% of them said that it was important that the guy be
taller than they are.

72%!?!?! Actually, when I was looking in the states I think I saw
something like 90% of personal ads from women demanding
the man be not only taller, but often exceptionally taller.

This was incredible to me because the height restrictions these women
stated in their ads were so rediculous as to be unrealistic.
5' 11" oftentimes.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Of course, this is a small number of women in one locale, but if it's a
representative sample of American single women in general, that might
be the REAL reason why you needed to go outside this country to find a
woman to share your life with.

I'm 5' 7". I'm short, but I'm not a midget. It's not a huge problem
for me to find a large supply of women in the states I'm taller than.

But yes, women in the states and upper incomes seem to
be rather amusing in demanding that men both earn a good income
AND be tall AND also probably be interested in having children
on her timetable.

That's why Heidi is hoping for western countries to start paying
women $5,000 to have children because they're having such
a difficult time finding mates.

Overall, most reasonable women want men to be tall (just as men
might want their girlfriend to have nice tits) but they learn to deal
with it when weighing everything.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Grizzlie Antagonist]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not going to spin wheels getting into a point by point discussion
of this with you, cunt.
Mark described situations where he spent time and money, apparently a
lot of it, trying to win the affections of a number of women without
being able to change their selfish attitudes.

...and this was Mark's mistake: He kept trying to change these women.

Hello you two!
I hate to disagree with GA (I really do!)

I don't know why. We disagree all the time.

I was joking. Do you still have a sense of humor?

So was I. Does that answer your question?

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
but I don't recall saying
I spent a lot of money trying to change women. I recall saying
I had communicated with them. Sometimes I put my money
where my mouth was, sometimes I didn't.

I said that you "apparently" spent "a lot" of money, because that's the
impression that I received, but it's a minor point, whether you spent
"a lot" of money or not.

Question: What did I say give you that impression? ESPECIALLY
when I have a repuation on this forum for being a huge cheapskate?

I don't remember that being your reputation, but I appreciate your
keeping me informed.

It's simply implied by the fact that you expended a certain amount of
time and effort in getting to know these women

Presumably, this involved personal and face-to-face contact and
presumably this contact would often be at a restaurant or wherever and
presumably, these self-centered women weren't picking up the tab.

Post by PolishKnight
I was amused at this accusation actually. Next thing I know,
you'll be accusing me of trying out for basketball. :-)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
This is the point which the feminazi fluff bunny with the tinfoil Norse
Viking helmet is not getting (either out of calculation or out of
stupidity, I'm not sure which - but at any rate, now you're on notice
that YOU'D better get it).
The point is that she is comparing your investment in a relationship -
requiring some time and some money on women who gave you nothing back -
with her investment in a "first date" - in which she spent two hours
worth of time and received the BENEFIT of some man's money but decided
that the man who had spent it on her was too self-centered to deserve
any additional time - and deciding that the men in HER equation are as
"bad" as the women in YOURS.
It's a phony moral equivalence argument. You have had occasion to spot
these before and to "call" people on it, so I expect you to spot this
one.

Tell you what: Show a cite from her making this equivalence.
I honestly didn't see it but you have a better sensitivity for this
than I.

I really don't see the need to do that.

Again, that's simply implied by her attempting repeatedly to "match"
her experience with yours. Also, that is what I repeatedly accuse her
of doing and she isn't denying it. Show me a cite that indicates that
she is NOT making this equivalence.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
On an unrelated matter, there's a magazine circulating through the
Central Valley called HIS Magazine - the target audience being upscale
single males. I thumbed through their last issue and saw that they
interviewed a number of single women. One of the questions involved
height and yes, 72% of them said that it was important that the guy be
taller than they are.

72%!?!?! Actually, when I was looking in the states I think I saw
something like 90% of personal ads from women demanding
the man be not only taller, but often exceptionally taller.
This was incredible to me because the height restrictions these women
stated in their ads were so rediculous as to be unrealistic.
5' 11" oftentimes.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Of course, this is a small number of women in one locale, but if it's a
representative sample of American single women in general, that might
be the REAL reason why you needed to go outside this country to find a
woman to share your life with.

I'm 5' 7". I'm short, but I'm not a midget. It's not a huge problem
for me to find a large supply of women in the states I'm taller than.

No, that's true, although less so if the woman is wearing heels and
STILL expects the man to be taller.

Similar demographic information was used to establish that the Joseph
Milteer "lookalike" shown in one of the Altgens photos of the Kennedy
motorcade was, in fact, not Joseph Milteer.

*************
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.htm

But the height of the spectator provided even more conclusive evidence:

The only available height record of Milteer gives his stature as 64
inches. This corresponds to about the seventh statural percentile of
American males. That is, about 93 out of 100 adult American men would
be taller than Milteer. Also, about 35 percent of adult American
females would exceed Milteer's reported height. In contrast, the
spectator alleged to be Milteer is taller than 4 of the 7 other males
and all of the 16 females in the line of spectators shown in the
motorcade photograph. Based upon Milteer's reported height, the
probability of randomly selecting a group of Americans where so many
are shorter than Milteer's reported height is .0000007. Moreover, an
analysis based upon actual measurements of certain physical features
shown in the photograph yields a height estimate for the spectator of
about 70 inches - 6 inches taller than Milteer's reported stature.
(HSCA Volume 6, pp. 242-257)

In short: the spectator wasn't Milteer. He didn't even particularly
look like Milteer.
*************

Post by PolishKnight
But yes, women in the states and upper incomes seem to
be rather amusing in demanding that men both earn a good income
AND be tall AND also probably be interested in having children
on her timetable.
That's why Heidi is hoping for western countries to start paying
women $5,000 to have children because they're having such
a difficult time finding mates.
Overall, most reasonable women want men to be tall (just as men
might want their girlfriend to have nice tits) but they learn to deal
with it when weighing everything.
regards,
PolishKnight

[Andre Lieven]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not going to spin wheels getting into a point by point
discussion of this with you, cunt.
Mark described situations where he spent time and money, apparently a
lot of it, trying to win the affections of a number of women without
being able to change their selfish attitudes.

...and this was Mark's mistake: He kept trying to change these women.

Hello you two!
I hate to disagree with GA (I really do!)

I don't know why. We disagree all the time.

I was joking. Do you still have a sense of humor?

<g>

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist

Post by PolishKnight
but I don't recall saying
I spent a lot of money trying to change women. I recall saying
I had communicated with them. Sometimes I put my money
where my mouth was, sometimes I didn't.

I said that you "apparently" spent "a lot" of money, because that's the
impression that I received, but it's a minor point, whether you spent
"a lot" of money or not.

Question: What did I say give you that impression? ESPECIALLY
when I have a repuation on this forum for being a huge cheapskate?

You do ? I grant that having read your posts on such issues, I was of
the impression that you were not likely the fella who would actually
pay for all of a date, but I can't say that that lead me to consider
you a " huge cheapskate ".

Post by PolishKnight
I was amused at this accusation actually. Next thing I know,
you'll be accusing me of trying out for basketball. :-)

Special Olympics ? <ducking><g>

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
This is the point which the feminazi fluff bunny with the tinfoil Norse
Viking helmet is not getting (either out of calculation or out of
stupidity, I'm not sure which - but at any rate, now you're on notice
that YOU'D better get it).
The point is that she is comparing your investment in a relationship -
requiring some time and some money on women who gave you nothing back -
with her investment in a "first date" - in which she spent two hours
worth of time and received the BENEFIT of some man's money but decided
that the man who had spent it on her was too self-centered to deserve
any additional time - and deciding that the men in HER equation are as
"bad" as the women in YOURS.
It's a phony moral equivalence argument. You have had occasion to spot
these before and to "call" people on it, so I expect you to spot this
one.

Tell you what: Show a cite from her making this equivalence.
I honestly didn't see it but you have a better sensitivity for this
than I.

I can't show you a cite, but I can say that, rading this thread's
output that ran three days worth in the last hour, I also got the
impression that Misandrist Graw was playing the old whore of
" moral equivalence " with the topic.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
On an unrelated matter, there's a magazine circulating through the
Central Valley called HIS Magazine - the target audience being upscale
single males. I thumbed through their last issue and saw that they
interviewed a number of single women. One of the questions involved
height and yes, 72% of them said that it was important that the guy be
taller than they are.

72%!?!?! Actually, when I was looking in the states I think I saw
something like 90% of personal ads from women demanding
the man be not only taller, but often exceptionally taller.

Well, women do... lie... from time to time. Could be that the 90%
sample was simply more honest than the 72% sample ?

Post by PolishKnight
This was incredible to me because the height restrictions these women
stated in their ads were so rediculous as to be unrealistic.
5' 11" oftentimes.

<g> Well, I could meet that " standard "...

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Of course, this is a small number of women in one locale, but if it's a
representative sample of American single women in general, that might
be the REAL reason why you needed to go outside this country to find a
woman to share your life with.

I'm 5' 7". I'm short, but I'm not a midget. It's not a huge problem
for me to find a large supply of women in the states I'm taller than.

Sure. My fiancee is 4 foot 11 3/4 inches...

Post by PolishKnight
But yes, women in the states and upper incomes seem to
be rather amusing in demanding that men both earn a good income
AND be tall AND also probably be interested in having children
on her timetable.

Sure. If we are to conclude that a good and lasting relationship
requires compromise, it follows that such demanding women are
displaying their very poor qualities for a relationship.

Post by PolishKnight
That's why Heidi is hoping for western countries to start paying
women $5,000 to have children because they're having such
a difficult time finding mates.

Indeed.

Post by PolishKnight
Overall, most reasonable women want men to be tall (just as men
might want their girlfriend to have nice tits) but they learn to deal
with it when weighing everything.

Indeed. Men understand mature compromise. It might help women to learn
this basic lesson of adult life.

Andre

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
The point is that she is comparing your investment in a relationship -
requiring some time and some money on women who gave you nothing back -
with her investment in a "first date" - in which she spent two hours
worth of time and received the BENEFIT of some man's money but decided
that the man who had spent it on her was too self-centered to deserve
any additional time - and deciding that the men in HER equation are as
"bad" as the women in YOURS.

Well...gee, Grizzlie, I could have chosen to continue to date these men and
have them spend even more money on me. But, I chose *not* to do that!
Imagine how much money these guys saved by my having refused to go beyond
that first date! I didn't permit these men to continue to invest in a
relationship that was not going to go anywhere!

I don't see much difference between that selfish woman and that
self-absorbed man. Both are inconsiderate!

Mark, however, chose to continue to invest in selfish women, while I chose
to release those self-absorbed men just as soon as possible. Mark believed
it was worth the time and effort by going on multiple dates. I, however,
believed it wasn't worth it! I dropped these guys in a matter of hours!
;-)

Heidi

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated. If I
saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging around to
try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner of
the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

Post by PolishKnight
Maybe that doesn't apply to you, but I have seen a lot of women
who have a similar attitude who wind up as targets of men
who wrap such women around their fingers (and brag to us
over beers about it.) Men who bother to play these games
usually have their own insecurities as well.

If they're merely playing games, they will eventually be found out. There
aren't too many people that can carry on an act for any great length of
time. Eventually, they trip themselves up.

Post by PolishKnight
Generally speaking, outside of those Eharmony commercials,
there will be an adjustment period for two people to
accomodate each other. People need to change along with
life events such as leaving home, going to school, moving
to a new city, etc. Why not have people change to
accomodate the person closest to them?

That person with whom you're on that *first* date is *not* a person closest
to you. More often than not they are virtual strangers. That first date,
however, gives the couple an opportunity to get to know one another a little
better. If it works out fine, great. If not, leave! And sure, there are
people who'll give their dates second, third and perhaps even years worth of
their time only to discover that their first impressions were dead on and
they've wasted years trying to reform this person into someone *they* want
that person to be. I chose not to waste my time like that.

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I'm rather proud of the fact that I've changed significantly
over time. I've grown, learned, acknowledged some mistakes,
tried a number of things, and really gotten a lot out of life!

I'm glad to hear that, Mark.

Post by PolishKnight
Heidi, isn't it rather crazy for someone to plan their whole
life based upon their experiences and insights up until
their mid-20's?
For good or ill, people change and grow. It's a question of
whether they'll grow wiser and older or just older.

Sure, but it's even sweeter when you've started with someone who's in tune
with you right off the bat. ;-)

Hubby and I have also grown and changed over the years, too. And we're
still in tune with each other.

Had I chosen a guy with whom I was in disharmony, who knows how much further
apart we may have grown over the years? It could have gone either
way...further apart or perhaps closer together.

I chose, however, to start off with someone I was in harmony with. I
believed that that would allow us a greater chance at actually staying
together. For us, this worked. ;-)

Post by PolishKnight
Ironically, if I had judged my wife based upon our first
experiences with each other we wouldn't be together.
We had a lot of disasters that almost belong in a comedy!

...a comedy of errors is no big deal. However, if Galena had been arrogant,
bossy and totally self-absorbed, I doubt you would have hung around for much
longer.

Post by PolishKnight
But... we both recognized that we're good people (as many
third parties like to say about us) and we share the same
goals and ideals. She considered some of my input (and learned
to enjoy Opera) and I learned to keep my nails clipped. :-)

Great...but notice: You *shared*. You also have the *same* goals and
ideals. You found a woman who said exactly all that what you wanted to
hear! ;-)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
If I didn't like what was revealed, that second date simply didn't happen.
I was not about to make excuses for these guys, give them a second chance,
or whatever. If you didn't make a good first impression, then forget it!
Heidi

With such a charming attitude, it's difficult to understand
why men such as myself didn't want to pursue local North
American women. :-)

I'll tell you about one of those arrogant bossy types and how they behaved
on that first date:

1. He'd pick the time and place...o.k...no problem. This allowed me to see
what sort of places he liked.

2. Then when I wanted to order the kind of drink I prefered, he'd say,
"No...try this one, it's cheaper."...Huh?

3. When it came time to order the meal, he wouldn't allow me to see the
menu. He'd say, "We'll have this that and the other thing." ...Huh?

4. The conversation would revolve around all the things that *he* had
accomplished. He'd talk about his work, his investments, what he bought,
how much he's worth, where he goes to buy his stuff. And whenever I want to
add to the conversation, he'd interrupt me and carry on describing what *he*
was into. O.k....it was obvious to me he wasn't interested in any I had to
say about myself.

5. At the end of the evening, he'd say, "I'll pick you up tomorrow at such
a such time." Huh?
My answer, "You will do no such thing! Good-bye!" ...and I closed the
door. ;-)

Yes, Mark, I closed the door on a guy who owned an apartment building in the
West End of Vancouver. He was worth millions. But, you know what? I
didn't like this guy! There was no way that I could get along with such a
fellow! He was simply too bossy and inconsiderate of me. I also did not
want to waste my time and effort retraining him. His behavior was too
extreme for me to believe that I could convince him to be a little more
thoughtful about what I liked or what I may have wanted to do. So, I
dropped him...and I have no regrets! ;-)

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated. If I
saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging around to
try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner of
the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

I think you're exaggerating.

These men did clearly resonate with you at least in the sense
that they took the risk to ask you out, offered to pay your
way, and you accepted a first date with them.

Surely, then, they couldn't have been all that bad.

You have a point that it didn't make a lot of sense for
me to spend a lot of time and money on American women
who may not have appreciated someone who made an effort
to make them feel welcome and appreciated when
there were other options available. It's a bit
of a no-brainer, isn't it? Yes, these women had
potential but on the first date, they largely acted
like 4 year olds with ADD.

Note that showing appreciation doesn't require someone
to say what someone wants to hear nor does difference
of opinion and little faux-pas indicate disharmony.
A lot of this exists within oneself. I suppose
after traveling for so long (not just overseas, but
also locally in the states) and having had to grow
quite a bit that it's natural for me to find ways
to be harmonious internally.

This may explain, Heidi, why so many women prefer
to settle down near their ancestrial home while men
tend to roam a bit more.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
Maybe that doesn't apply to you, but I have seen a lot of women
who have a similar attitude who wind up as targets of men
who wrap such women around their fingers (and brag to us
over beers about it.) Men who bother to play these games
usually have their own insecurities as well.

If they're merely playing games, they will eventually be found out. There
aren't too many people that can carry on an act for any great length of
time. Eventually, they trip themselves up.

You'd be surprised!

On the contrary, people are expected to put on acts
all the time. In business, it's understood that people will
put on a friendly face for business associates even if
they dislike them or find their mannerisms "disharmonious".
Do you really think the clerk means "have a nice day"
when you pick up your groceries? :-) (I'm sure they
do, Canadians tend to be such nice, polite people! :-)

You get the point, I hope: When _money_ is at stake,
it's not a problem for most people to put on an act.
Hmmm, what do most men risk for a date again?

Of course, it's commonly argued that foreign women
also put on an act for citizenship. (Unsurprisingly,
I have already heard of stories of foreign MEN marrying
Canadian and American women for citizenship and these
women being shocked when the men leave them. Did you
notice in the last Olympics how many competitors
for Canada and the U.S. were Russian men who married
their partners and got citizenship in the last
year or so?)

Sometimes, people put on an act they even halfway believe.
That's the most dangerous for all parties concerned.
Sometimes people are just nuts.

Anyways, back to men on first dates: They don't even
have to put on an act for a great length of time
as you put it. Many men learn to do this for,
oh, say, 3 dates or so. I've heard of this several
times. The men say what it takes to get into her
pants and then they're off!

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
Generally speaking, outside of those Eharmony commercials,
there will be an adjustment period for two people to
accomodate each other. People need to change along with
life events such as leaving home, going to school, moving
to a new city, etc. Why not have people change to
accomodate the person closest to them?

That person with whom you're on that *first* date is *not* a person closest
to you.

No, they're not.

However, the possibility exists that they may turn out to
be such a person.

It's said that people act rudely in cities is because
of their assumption that the people they encounter daily
are probably total strangers so they act like total jerks.
I love the line from Crocodile Dundee: "With millions of
people in New York, everyone must be real friendly!"

Post by Heidi Graw
More often than not they are virtual strangers. That first date,
however, gives the couple an opportunity to get to know one another a little
better.

I suppose we can look at this from a glass half-empty/half-full
situation: Does someone view a new person in their life
as the possible stepping stone to a wonderful relationship, or rather
as a stranger at the quickie-mart who gives them change
for a 20?

Not that either view determines anything absolutely.
As I said, my wife and I had a number of disasters when
we first met.

Post by Heidi Graw
If it works out fine, great. If not, leave!

Indeed, if a woman has put little effort into it other
than getting picked up, then this attitude applies.
This is why I think that many men wait until the
relationship has gotten moving a bit before showing
his darker side. (You know, taking the dishes out
of the oven :-)

Post by Heidi Graw
And sure, there are
people who'll give their dates second, third and perhaps even years worth of
their time only to discover that their first impressions were dead on and
they've wasted years trying to reform this person into someone *they* want
that person to be. I chose not to waste my time like that.

This is assuming, of course, that the person really knows
what they want that person to be.

Many marriages break up especially at the mid-mark where you're
at precisely because the couple outgrows each other or
they discover the priorities they had in youth didn't
work out for them later in life.

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I'm rather proud of the fact that I've changed significantly
over time. I've grown, learned, acknowledged some mistakes,
tried a number of things, and really gotten a lot out of life!

I'm glad to hear that, Mark.

Post by PolishKnight
Heidi, isn't it rather crazy for someone to plan their whole
life based upon their experiences and insights up until
their mid-20's?
For good or ill, people change and grow. It's a question of
whether they'll grow wiser and older or just older.

Sure, but it's even sweeter when you've started with someone who's in tune
with you right off the bat. ;-)

Good for you.

Looking back, I see a lot of women I probably was compatable
with and if things had been different, I might have settled
down with them.

On the other hand, as sweet as these women are, I was a
different person back then. I see the core of who
I am, of course, but if I hadn't gone out and grown
a bit I think I'd be less interesting.

You sound like a country girl at heart. That's nice and
all and in that sense, maybe it's good for you to
find someone stable and in tune. No wonder you like
real estate. :-)

Me, I'm really messed up: I love Opera and guns. Hmmm, maybe
I should write an operetta about deer hunting... :-)

Post by Heidi Graw
Hubby and I have also grown and changed over the years, too. And we're
still in tune with each other.

Good for you!

Post by Heidi Graw
Had I chosen a guy with whom I was in disharmony, who knows how much further
apart we may have grown over the years? It could have gone either
way...further apart or perhaps closer together.
I chose, however, to start off with someone I was in harmony with. I
believed that that would allow us a greater chance at actually staying
together. For us, this worked. ;-)

Post by PolishKnight
Ironically, if I had judged my wife based upon our first
experiences with each other we wouldn't be together.
We had a lot of disasters that almost belong in a comedy!

...a comedy of errors is no big deal. However, if Galena had been arrogant,
bossy and totally self-absorbed, I doubt you would have hung around for much
longer.

As I said, I don't really know if these men were necessarily
totally self-absorbed. Presumably, they did come to pick
you up and offer to pay your way.

But yes, she did have a rough edge when I met her and it's
still there. People laugh at how she appears sweet
and innocent but she can be a fireball.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
But... we both recognized that we're good people (as many
third parties like to say about us) and we share the same
goals and ideals. She considered some of my input (and learned
to enjoy Opera) and I learned to keep my nails clipped. :-)

Great...but notice: You *shared*. You also have the *same* goals and
ideals. You found a woman who said exactly all that what you wanted to
hear! ;-)

No... but the core things that mattered were there. We didn't
sweat the small stuff.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
If I didn't like what was revealed, that second date simply didn't happen.
I was not about to make excuses for these guys, give them a second chance,
or whatever. If you didn't make a good first impression, then forget it!
Heidi

With such a charming attitude, it's difficult to understand
why men such as myself didn't want to pursue local North
American women. :-)

I'll tell you about one of those arrogant bossy types and how they behaved
1. He'd pick the time and place...o.k...no problem. This allowed me to see
what sort of places he liked.
2. Then when I wanted to order the kind of drink I prefered, he'd say,
"No...try this one, it's cheaper."...Huh?

A man after my own heart! (hug) :-)

Seriously though, so friggin' what? He's paying, yes?
Women, on the other hand, rarely offer to pay for a man's
way on a first date whether the drinks are on sale or not.
You even said that women in your area would only go out
to meet men when they could pay half price.

Post by Heidi Graw
3. When it came time to order the meal, he wouldn't allow me to see the
menu. He'd say, "We'll have this that and the other thing." ...Huh?

Ok, now that was rude. He should at least have asked if
you liked a particular thing. My wife did this to me too,
BTW. We went out to a restaurant and she picked out
everything. But she did ensure that what she ordered
would be to my taste.

Post by Heidi Graw
4. The conversation would revolve around all the things that *he* had
accomplished. He'd talk about his work, his investments, what he bought,
how much he's worth, where he goes to buy his stuff. And whenever I want to
add to the conversation, he'd interrupt me and carry on describing what *he*
was into. O.k....it was obvious to me he wasn't interested in any I had to
say about myself.

Ok... Now I must be on your side here. A host should
definitely give a chance for you to get a word in edgewise.
Besides, doesn't he want to know what kind of woman
you are?

I don't know which is worse: What you described or the
women who would just sit and wait for me to get the
conversation going and I would have to pull teeth.

Post by Heidi Graw
5. At the end of the evening, he'd say, "I'll pick you up tomorrow at such
a such time." Huh?
My answer, "You will do no such thing! Good-bye!" ...and I closed the
door. ;-)

Fair enough. It sounds like the guy probably didn't get
fazed by this too much. :-)

At the same time, maybe he found a woman who'd like him.
He has investments and "stuff."

Both of us apparently didn't get along with the crowd.

Post by Heidi Graw
Yes, Mark, I closed the door on a guy who owned an apartment building in the
West End of Vancouver. He was worth millions. But, you know what? I
didn't like this guy! There was no way that I could get along with such a
fellow!

Come now. "No way?" Like me, you moved onto greener pastures.
I at least acknowledge that while I didn't exactly
get turned on by the behaviour of the American women I dated
I do see ways I could have worked things out with many
of them. You at least had him taking you out and offering
to pay your way which is more than most men get.

But... then again... I'm not exactly a winner either
on paper. I'm short, not exactly loaded. Probably many
of these women did go out with these guys and they
wound up having to settle for a date with... er... me
because they were too fussy. :-)

Post by Heidi Graw
He was simply too bossy and inconsiderate of me.

Heidi, all throughout this post I didn't hear ONE thing
you did for him. Nada.

It's possible that he turned out to be such a jerk
because the women he met previously didn't set
much of an example either. Maybe as far as he's
concerned, the date went well because you didn't act
much differently than many other women do on a SUCCESSFUL
date.

Post by Heidi Graw
I also did not
want to waste my time and effort retraining him. His behavior was too
extreme for me to believe that I could convince him to be a little more
thoughtful about what I liked or what I may have wanted to do. So, I
dropped him...and I have no regrets! ;-)

From what you've described, he doesn't really seem
all that extreme. So he blabbed on about himself
and didn't blow a lot of money. Horrors! Has Amnesty International
been notified? :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
These men did clearly resonate with you at least in the sense
that they took the risk to ask you out, offered to pay your
way, and you accepted a first date with them.

What resonated with *them* was the fact they liked what they *saw*, which
prompted them to approach me. And if I found them relatively half-decent
looking (they didn't have to be the most handsome men), and if the initial
conversation was polite enough, and if I believed it might be worth
spending an evening getting to know them better, then I accepted the offer
of a date.

In the case of the guy I described later, he happened to be in the bar with
a friend. I was in the bar with my own friends. His friend had approached
our table and engaged one of the girls in conversation. Then when this guy
found out I was German and could still speak German, he called over his
buddy who happened to be a German immigrant, too. Then these two guys spent
more time speaking to each other, while us girls listened. They seemed
humorous and harmless enough. So, when this guy then asked me out for a
date, I accepted. I thought that one-on-one date would give me a better
opportunity to get to know this fellow better.

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
I'll tell you about one of those arrogant bossy types and how they behaved
1. He'd pick the time and place...o.k...no problem. This allowed me to see
what sort of places he liked.
2. Then when I wanted to order the kind of drink I prefered, he'd say,
"No...try this one, it's cheaper."...Huh?

A man after my own heart! (hug) :-)
Seriously though, so friggin' what? He's paying, yes?

Yes, but he also demonstrated his total disregard for my own customary
drink! Instead of my usual Gin/Tonic, I had to make do with a glass of
House Red! Sheez!

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
3. When it came time to order the meal, he wouldn't allow me to see the
menu. He'd say, "We'll have this that and the other thing." ...Huh?

Ok, now that was rude. He should at least have asked if
you liked a particular thing.

Exactly. I'm glad you agree.

Post by PolishKnight
My wife did this to me too,
BTW. We went out to a restaurant and she picked out
everything. But she did ensure that what she ordered
would be to my taste.

Ya, but Galena already knew by that time what you like and don't like. This
guy didn't know anything about what I may have liked or disliked. He just
ordered what *he* wanted ordered. Fortunately, it was something edible, so
I didn't bother raising an objection.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
4. The conversation would revolve around all the things that *he* had
accomplished. He'd talk about his work, his investments, what he bought,
how much he's worth, where he goes to buy his stuff. And whenever I want to
add to the conversation, he'd interrupt me and carry on describing what *he*
was into. O.k....it was obvious to me he wasn't interested in any I had to
say about myself.

Ok... Now I must be on your side here. A host should
definitely give a chance for you to get a word in edgewise.

...just your typical arrogant Kraut! ;-)

Post by PolishKnight
Besides, doesn't he want to know what kind of woman
you are?

Apparently, for him it was sufficient that I was German and I appeared
attractive enough. He didn't seem particularly concerned about the type of
personality I had or what my interests were.

Post by PolishKnight
I don't know which is worse: What you described or the
women who would just sit and wait for me to get the
conversation going and I would have to pull teeth.

I tried to keep things balanced. But, he would have none of it.
Apparently, all he wanted was a sounding board. I was to just sit there and
listen to him talk about himself.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
5. At the end of the evening, he'd say, "I'll pick you up tomorrow at such
a such time." Huh?
My answer, "You will do no such thing! Good-bye!" ...and I closed the
door. ;-)

Fair enough. It sounds like the guy probably didn't get
fazed by this too much. :-)

Yes, I'm quite sure that it didn't faze on him. That's why I didn't feel
particularly concerned about turning him down for that second date. Come to
think of it, I don't think he even knew my name! Did he even ask me my
name? LOL... Oh dear! ;-)

Post by PolishKnight
Heidi, all throughout this post I didn't hear ONE thing
you did for him. Nada.

Well... what should I have done? I accepted his offer for that date, I
appeared on time at the appointed place. I listened to what he had to say
about himself. Whenever I opened my mouth, he interrupted and kept rambling
on about his own insterests. He wasn't interested in anything I had to say
about myself. What I did do for him, though, was to be that sounding board
and be that body occupying that seat across from him. That's all he
apparently wanted from me!

That date really was very bizarre! Up until that point, I've never met a
guy who was that self-absorbed and inconsiderate. The only thing I could
think of doing was to drop him.

What do you think I should have done?

Post by PolishKnight
From what you've described, he doesn't really seem
all that extreme. So he blabbed on about himself
and didn't blow a lot of money. Horrors! Has Amnesty International
been notified? :-)

Ya, but I don't think you would like to spend your life simply being a
nobody! The best I could do under those circumstances was to drop him and
move on! I know I made the right decision.

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)
Well... what should I have done? I accepted his offer for that date, I
appeared on time at the appointed place. I listened to what he had to say
about himself. Whenever I opened my mouth, he interrupted and kept rambling
on about his own insterests. He wasn't interested in anything I had to say
about myself. What I did do for him, though, was to be that sounding board
and be that body occupying that seat across from him. That's all he
apparently wanted from me!
That date really was very bizarre! Up until that point, I've never met a
guy who was that self-absorbed and inconsiderate. The only thing I could
think of doing was to drop him.

Indeed! Yet, similar behaviour is not uncommon for a lot of
women on first dates in the states and they expect
the man to foot the bill to boot! (pardon the pun)

Post by Heidi Graw
What do you think I should have done?

I guess this is like someone who is used to walking
around the mall asking someone whose used to the Alps
about how to enjoy a hike. :-)

A would have leaned back and enjoyed my glass of (house)
red wine and then chosen to challenge some of his ideas about
investment as you've done with me on this forum.
It's one of those half-empty glass kind of things.
Even if you never expected to see the guy again,
you could have had a more fun time.

Did you ever hear Ronald Reagan's joke about the
optimist and the pessimest? A spoiled child
does nothing but complain about his Christmas gifts.
One doesn't have batteries, another is last year's
model. etc. The other child, the optimist,
goes into a room full of shit and excitedly
yells: "There has to be a pony in here somewhere!!!!"

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
From what you've described, he doesn't really seem
all that extreme. So he blabbed on about himself
and didn't blow a lot of money. Horrors! Has Amnesty International
been notified? :-)

Ya, but I don't think you would like to spend your life simply being a
nobody!

Indeed!

But then again, he didn't treat you like a nobody.
He was a boor, but he still took you out.

So really, if we use your standards, women largely
treat men in our culture as "nobodys". If the guy
had listened to your point of view and been
enraptured with your sage observations BUT hadn't
picked up the check, the vast majority of women
in our culture would have dumped him as a "cheapskate."

So I'll reiterate the point I made before: This
man's behaviour probably wasn't that terribly boorish
by the priorities of most women in our culture.

Post by Heidi Graw
The best I could do under those circumstances was to drop him and
move on! I know I made the right decision.
Heidi

I disagree.

It wasn't the "best" you could do, but it didn't hurt.
You could afford to move on cheaply and losing him
didn't exactly break your heart.

But that's probably precisely why you didn't do your
"best". You didn't feel a need to.

And that applied to me as well:
By the time I realized I could do better, I had
already found greener pastures. It wasn't
an inadequacy on my part (or yours), just the
opposite.

Fair enough?

regards,
Polishknight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
What do you think I should have done?

I guess this is like someone who is used to walking
around the mall asking someone whose used to the Alps
about how to enjoy a hike. :-)
A would have leaned back and enjoyed my glass of (house)
red wine and then chosen to challenge some of his ideas about
investment as you've done with me on this forum.

<chuckle> How many 21-year olds do you know who are adept at talking
investments? We're talking 1976! Back then it was only the rich who
invested. Us poor working yokels had to make do with savings accounts. The
guy who was my date was 35 years old! He knew his way around the financial
world much better than I. So, when he yapped about all his investments,
there wasn't anything I could say to challenge him.

Post by PolishKnight
It's one of those half-empty glass kind of things.
Even if you never expected to see the guy again,
you could have had a more fun time.

I tried to steer the conversation towards topics that I could talk about,
but he kept interrupting and droning on and on about *his* interests. After
a few attempts, I just gave up! I let him blather on and on while I tried
not to yawn too much.

I did, however, try to amuse myself by counting the creases around his eyes
and imagining what he might look like naked. For his age he was still in
shape, so it was not at all unpleasant to imagine him in that way. LOL...
;-) And then my thoughts drifted to my being 40 and him being 54...YIKES!
Reality check! My date was an old geezer! I'm on a date with an old man!
Sheez! "I'd like another drink, please!" ;-)

Post by PolishKnight
Did you ever hear Ronald Reagan's joke about the
optimist and the pessimest? A spoiled child
does nothing but complain about his Christmas gifts.
One doesn't have batteries, another is last year's
model. etc. The other child, the optimist,
goes into a room full of shit and excitedly
yells: "There has to be a pony in here somewhere!!!!"

Ya...and the pony lurking in his jeans was probably rather old and tired.
No wonder the guy kept talking about all his money and assets. His organ
was limp! Although, I have no proof of that. I didn't bother to check it
out. ;-)

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
But then again, he didn't treat you like a nobody.
He was a boor, but he still took you out.

...ya to be that sounding board...a thing...that object occupying the seat
across from him so that he wouldn't appear to be eating alone.

Post by PolishKnight
So really, if we use your standards, women largely
treat men in our culture as "nobodys".

That's debatable.

Post by PolishKnight
If the guy
had listened to your point of view and been
enraptured with your sage observations BUT hadn't
picked up the check, the vast majority of women
in our culture would have dumped him as a "cheapskate."

Perhaps. However, as with this arrogant self-absorbed boor, had he not
acted that way, but had been an engaging conversationalist where the two of
us could have had an actual verbal exchange of ideas and topics to
discuss...a great back and forth covering numerous subjects and laughed
about this that and another thing, I probably would have offered to pay for
the meal, or at least contributed towards it. I didn't offer in this case
because the guy was behaving like an asshole. I didn't think he deserved a
treat. ;-)

Post by PolishKnight
So I'll reiterate the point I made before: This
man's behaviour probably wasn't that terribly boorish
by the priorities of most women in our culture.

Perhaps. He may well have been able to impress other women with all his
money. They might have put up with his boorish behavior. But, he didn't
impress me. I was more focused on his character, his personality, and I
didn't like it.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
The best I could do under those circumstances was to drop him and
move on! I know I made the right decision.

I disagree.
It wasn't the "best" you could do, but it didn't hurt.
You could afford to move on cheaply and losing him
didn't exactly break your heart.
But that's probably precisely why you didn't do your
"best". You didn't feel a need to.

It would have been immoral of me to play along with this guy and pretend
that I liked him. Sure, so I had this extremely wealthy guy take an
interest in me. I could have really played up to him. I could have made
him feel like a king. He might have even married me. And given he was 14
years older and German, I could have force fed him all sorts of high
fattening, high cholesterol foods...Sauerkraut and pork hocks! I could have
convinced him to work even harder to amass even greater wealth. Then he
could have died early and I could have been that wealthy merry widow right
about now. Imagine that, Mark! I gave up killing a man for his wealth! I
resisted the temptation! ;-)

Post by PolishKnight
By the time I realized I could do better, I had
already found greener pastures. It wasn't
an inadequacy on my part (or yours), just the
opposite.
Fair enough?

Well, Markie-pooh! I gave up wealth for love instead! And marrying for
love also came with its own rewards. I have everything I *need!* And all
too many people don't even have that!

Mark, I know I made the right decision. I was right to drop that guy. I
also dropped another wealthy guy who was just as arrogant and bossy. But,
of this guy, I know what later happened to him...he eventually married, had
a son and was divorced after seven years marriage! His wife left him
because she couldn't stand living with him anymore.

Should I write about my dating that particular guy? It's actually quite a
funny story. My mother and my sisters still talk about him...and they'll do
that even in front of my husband! Thank goodness hubby has a sense of
humour! LOL... ;-)

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
What do you think I should have done?

It's one of those half-empty glass kind of things.
Even if you never expected to see the guy again,
you could have had a more fun time.

I tried to steer the conversation towards topics that I could talk about,
but he kept interrupting and droning on and on about *his* interests. After
a few attempts, I just gave up! I let him blather on and on while I tried
not to yawn too much.
I did, however, try to amuse myself by counting the creases around his eyes
and imagining what he might look like naked. For his age he was still in
shape, so it was not at all unpleasant to imagine him in that way. LOL...
;-) And then my thoughts drifted to my being 40 and him being 54...YIKES!
Reality check! My date was an old geezer! I'm on a date with an old man!
Sheez! "I'd like another drink, please!" ;-)

And this is something I thought about as well: What if I had
married one of these women my age (at the time). They'd
be _40_ now. Eeek! That's old! :-)

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
So really, if we use your standards, women largely
treat men in our culture as "nobodys".

That's debatable.

Granted again. Women don't pay for dinner to
take men out to be sounding boards. :-) Quite simply,
Heidi, I'm amazed men literally pay to put up with a
lot of this crap in the states. I wonder if maybe they
just drank some funny water or something.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
If the guy
had listened to your point of view and been
enraptured with your sage observations BUT hadn't
picked up the check, the vast majority of women
in our culture would have dumped him as a "cheapskate."

Perhaps. However, as with this arrogant self-absorbed boor, had he not
acted that way, but had been an engaging conversationalist where the two of
us could have had an actual verbal exchange of ideas and topics to
discuss...a great back and forth covering numerous subjects and laughed
about this that and another thing, I probably would have offered to pay for
the meal, or at least contributed towards it. I didn't offer in this case
because the guy was behaving like an asshole. I didn't think he deserved a
treat. ;-)

Yeah but... come now: Offering to pay your way if the guy is
being good isn't really worth that much anyway. Men learn
to view that as a rejection rather than a reward or as an insincere
ploy where the man is expected to "insist" upon paying.

What REALLY might have shocked him, Heidi, is if you insisted
upon paying for both of you. But that would be like
me sending money to Amnesty International. :-)

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
So I'll reiterate the point I made before: This
man's behaviour probably wasn't that terribly boorish
by the priorities of most women in our culture.

Perhaps. He may well have been able to impress other women with all his
money. They might have put up with his boorish behavior. But, he didn't
impress me. I was more focused on his character, his personality, and I
didn't like it.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
The best I could do under those circumstances was to drop him and
move on! I know I made the right decision.

I disagree.
It wasn't the "best" you could do, but it didn't hurt.
You could afford to move on cheaply and losing him
didn't exactly break your heart.
But that's probably precisely why you didn't do your
"best". You didn't feel a need to.

It would have been immoral of me to play along with this guy and pretend
that I liked him. Sure, so I had this extremely wealthy guy take an
interest in me. I could have really played up to him. I could have made
him feel like a king. He might have even married me. And given he was 14
years older and German, I could have force fed him all sorts of high
fattening, high cholesterol foods...Sauerkraut and pork hocks! I could have
convinced him to work even harder to amass even greater wealth. Then he
could have died early and I could have been that wealthy merry widow right
about now. Imagine that, Mark! I gave up killing a man for his wealth! I
resisted the temptation! ;-)

"Lippen schweigen,
's fluestern Geigen:
Hab mich lieb!
All die Schritte
Sagen: Bitte,
Hab mich lieb!
Jeder Druck der Haende
Deutlich mir's beschrieb,
Er sagt klar: 's wahr, 's ist wahr,
Du hast mich lieb!"

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
By the time I realized I could do better, I had
already found greener pastures. It wasn't
an inadequacy on my part (or yours), just the
opposite.
Fair enough?

Well, Markie-pooh! I gave up wealth for love instead! And marrying for
love also came with its own rewards. I have everything I *need!* And all
too many people don't even have that!
Mark, I know I made the right decision. I was right to drop that guy. I
also dropped another wealthy guy who was just as arrogant and bossy. But,
of this guy, I know what later happened to him...he eventually married, had
a son and was divorced after seven years marriage! His wife left him
because she couldn't stand living with him anymore.

I've seen this a few times. Sometimes, the guy mellows out.
I'm sorry for both of them and the kid.

Post by Heidi Graw
Should I write about my dating that particular guy? It's actually quite a
funny story. My mother and my sisters still talk about him...and they'll do
that even in front of my husband! Thank goodness hubby has a sense of
humour! LOL... ;-)
Heidi

Sure! Do tell!

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Mark quoted, Lehar's "Die lustige Witwe" (The Merry Widow).
"Lippen schweigen,
Hab mich lieb!
All die Schritte
Sagen: Bitte,
Hab mich lieb!
Jeder Druck der Haende
Deutlich mir's beschrieb,
Er sagt klar: 's wahr, 's ist wahr,
Du hast mich lieb!"

<chuckle> Did I tell you I'm an opera fan, too? ;-)

I don't, however, drag hubby with me to see the opera at the Queen Elizabeth
Theatre in Vancouver. He's into heavy metal of a different kind...and that
is fine by me. He can go to his heavy metal rock concerts, while I go to
the symphony or opera. And when we're listening to music together we choose
classic and/or soft rock...something we can both tolerate and enjoy.

The kids get quite the variety, though. When Dad's out in the shed, he's
got his heavy metal full boar and I could be inside the house with 3 Tenors
serenading me. Then the kids escape into their rooms to listen to Rap
and/or this Techno crap! ;-)

Post by Heidi Graw
Should I write about my dating that particular guy? It's actually quite a
funny story. My mother and my sisters still talk about him...and they'll do
that even in front of my husband! Thank goodness hubby has a sense of
humour! LOL... ;-)

Sure! Do tell!

O.k...But, you have to promise to write about one of your dates, too. I
find it actually quite interesting to see how various people view their
dates...the woman's perspective vs. the man's perspective and the casual 3rd
party observer's.

Well...in any case, you asked for it. ;-)

Here it goes:

I was 18 years old, in my last year of highschool, and was working part time
in a little boutique in the mall. It was Friday night close to closing time
and I was in the store straightening out some clothes. From the corner of
my eye I saw this tall blond guy and a short dark haired guy walk by the
door. Then, I saw the tall blond double stepping backwards and leaning in
to look into the store. His little dark-haired side-kick followed him. I
looked at the blond, our eyes met and a broad smile spread across his face.
He then talked to his side-kick.

This short guy then came into the store and said to me, "My friend wants to
talk to you. Would you mind going out there to meet him?"

I thought to myself, "Huh?" The nerve of this guy...sending in his
side-kick to make this request of me. But, I had to laugh 'cause I thought
it was way too funny. Here's this guy sending in his "servant" to coax me
out of this store. Well...I just thought that was so totally bizarre that
it piqued my interest. I had to find out just what sort of guy this was.

So, I stepped out of the store and asked this tall blond what it was that he
wanted. He asked me when I would be finished and if I would like to go out
for a coffee with him. I hesitated for a moment, looked at his face...he
seemed sincere enough. His side-kick then offered further
reassurance..."He's really an o.k. guy." I looked at this short dark-haired
fellow who seemed really eager to please his master and to vouch for his
character.

Looking once more at that tall blue-eyed blond and seeing this expectant
look in his face coupled with an incredibly dazzling smile (he had lovely
teeth!), I decided, "O.k...meet me back here in 1/2 hour. There's a
coffeeshop open late near here that we can walk to."

The two showed up at the appointed time. We walked to that coffeeshop and
spent a couple of hours getting to know one another...talking about this
that and the other thing. Turns out he was Icelandic, 21 years old, and his
side-kick a British Pict...a master/slave relationship! Good grief! This
little Pict did everything his Icelandic master wanted. I didn't think such
a thing was possible in this day and age...1973. To the Icelander's credit,
he refrained from ordering me around...not initially, although I had the
impression he would eventually try it.

I did allow him to drive me home that evening. He drove a spiffy
Mustang...all souped up and drove it like a madman! Sheez! "What the hell
did I get myself into!" LOL...ah well..nothing ventured, nothing gained. I
arrived home safe and sound and agreed to another date. ;-)

So, that was the start of our relationship. He had his little submissive
Pict and a German gal whose buttons he knew exactly how to push! He loved
to watch me explode...I'd get downright *angry* and *livid* and then he'd
laugh! He thought it was funny to get me really riled up about things. He
could talk circles around me by twisting my words around until I didn't even
know what I was talking about anymore! Oh...he was so infuriating! I
dropped him because I found him too emotionally exhausting! One minute
we'd have a really great time, talking and laughing, he could be extremely
charming and romantic, and then the next minute he had me totally infuriated
at him. Like a stick of dynomite, he could light my fuse! Boom! I'd
explode. After awhile, I simply had enough of that crap. I told him not to
bother coming around anymore.

A couple of years went by and then he showed up at my new place of work. He
told me he had changed. Ya, right! LOL...Oh would I please spend an
evening with him..."Please?" He pleaded.

Damnit! Fool me accepted the invitation. He told me that in the last two
years he learned how to fly an airplane. He was licensed to fly those
little Cessnas. He bragged about all these arial stunts he learned and how
he had terrorized his friends and even his mother. He had them all puking
even though he had promised them he wouldn't do stunts while they were
passengers. "Heidi, would you like to come fly with me?" he asked.

"Are you kidding? After all you've told me, you expect me to believe you'd
fly responsibly while I'm in that plane with you?"

"I promise I'll be good. If you come with me, I'll not pull any stunts."
He looked very serious, but I could not bring myself to say, "Yes."

I looked into his face and locked eyes with him and said, "No. I don't
trust you!" And I meant that. So, he took me home and that was
that...until...

...a couple more years went by. I was 22, he was 25. He showed up at my
work again. He seemed quieter, calmer, somehow more serious. He asked me
out for dinner. I thought, "O.k..there's something really weird going on."
I accepted the invitation. He picked me up from work...but this time he was
driving a *station wagon*. Oh my gawd! What happened to the Mustang?
"I've settled down," he said. "I'm not the same as I used to be."

While we were driving in this station wagon, he told me all about how he set
up this business, how he got this warehouse, and things were going great.
He still liked to fly, but he learned not to freak out his friends and that
he better get his act together. Then he stopped the car, turned to me and
said, "Heidi, I need a business partner." The look in his face betrayed
much more than that. All I could say was, "We'll see." Did he really
change? Was he really looking to settle down? He needed a business
partner? Woah... He really threw me off this time...Did he really mean it?
Did he really change? I was prepared to give him the chance to prove it.

He restarted the car and we resolved to simply have an enjoyable evening
together, talking about all kinds of things. Laughing about old times.
Wondering what happened to his Pictish "servant." LOL... I began to think,
"Hey, maybe this could work out." Maybe he has learned not to push my
buttons! And we really did have a nice evening together. After he dropped
me off at my apartment, he went home. Then about 1/2 hour later I received
a phonecall...

It was him, "Heidi, my alarm clock is broken. Can you give me a wake-up
call at 6:00 a.m. in the morning?" Well...push my button or what!

I exploded, "I WILL NOT!" and slammed down the phone! I thought to
myself, "Wake your own damn self up! I'm not some hotel lobby clerk!" How
dare he! Oh, I was livid! LOL...

And that's the last I heard of him (except of course what went through the
grapevine). LOL... He hadn't changed a bit...not one bit! ;-)

I was actually quite impressed to hear that the woman who he eventually
married managed to put up with him for seven years! I could barely get
through one evening!

Now, Mark...your turn! Tell us about one of your past relationships! ;-)

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Mark quoted, Lehar's "Die lustige Witwe" (The Merry Widow).
"Lippen schweigen,
Hab mich lieb!
All die Schritte
Sagen: Bitte,
Hab mich lieb!
Jeder Druck der Haende
Deutlich mir's beschrieb,
Er sagt klar: 's wahr, 's ist wahr,
Du hast mich lieb!"

<chuckle> Did I tell you I'm an opera fan, too? ;-)

My wife saw it it Russian but didn't appreciate it until
she saw it live.

Post by Heidi Graw
I don't, however, drag hubby with me to see the opera at the Queen Elizabeth
Theatre in Vancouver. He's into heavy metal of a different kind...and that
is fine by me. He can go to his heavy metal rock concerts, while I go to
the symphony or opera. And when we're listening to music together we choose
classic and/or soft rock...something we can both tolerate and enjoy.
The kids get quite the variety, though. When Dad's out in the shed, he's
got his heavy metal full boar and I could be inside the house with 3 Tenors
serenading me. Then the kids escape into their rooms to listen to Rap
and/or this Techno crap! ;-)

Post by Heidi Graw
Should I write about my dating that particular guy? It's actually quite a
funny story. My mother and my sisters still talk about him...and they'll do
that even in front of my husband! Thank goodness hubby has a sense of
humour! LOL... ;-)

Sure! Do tell!

O.k...But, you have to promise to write about one of your dates, too. I
find it actually quite interesting to see how various people view their
dates...the woman's perspective vs. the man's perspective and the casual 3rd
party observer's.
Well...in any case, you asked for it. ;-)
I was 18 years old, in my last year of highschool, and was working part time
in a little boutique in the mall. It was Friday night close to closing time
and I was in the store straightening out some clothes. From the corner of
my eye I saw this tall blond guy and a short dark haired guy walk by the
door. Then, I saw the tall blond double stepping backwards and leaning in
to look into the store. His little dark-haired side-kick followed him. I
looked at the blond, our eyes met and a broad smile spread across his face.
He then talked to his side-kick.
This short guy then came into the store and said to me, "My friend wants to
talk to you. Would you mind going out there to meet him?"
I thought to myself, "Huh?" The nerve of this guy...sending in his
side-kick to make this request of me. But, I had to laugh 'cause I thought
it was way too funny. Here's this guy sending in his "servant" to coax me
out of this store. Well...I just thought that was so totally bizarre that
it piqued my interest. I had to find out just what sort of guy this was.
So, I stepped out of the store and asked this tall blond what it was that he
wanted. He asked me when I would be finished and if I would like to go out
for a coffee with him. I hesitated for a moment, looked at his face...he
seemed sincere enough. His side-kick then offered further
reassurance..."He's really an o.k. guy." I looked at this short dark-haired
fellow who seemed really eager to please his master and to vouch for his
character.
Looking once more at that tall blue-eyed blond and seeing this expectant
look in his face coupled with an incredibly dazzling smile (he had lovely
teeth!), I decided, "O.k...meet me back here in 1/2 hour. There's a
coffeeshop open late near here that we can walk to."
The two showed up at the appointed time. We walked to that coffeeshop and
spent a couple of hours getting to know one another...talking about this
that and the other thing. Turns out he was Icelandic, 21 years old, and his
side-kick a British Pict...a master/slave relationship! Good grief! This
little Pict did everything his Icelandic master wanted. I didn't think such
a thing was possible in this day and age...1973. To the Icelander's credit,
he refrained from ordering me around...not initially, although I had the
impression he would eventually try it.
I did allow him to drive me home that evening. He drove a spiffy
Mustang...all souped up and drove it like a madman! Sheez! "What the hell
did I get myself into!" LOL...ah well..nothing ventured, nothing gained. I
arrived home safe and sound and agreed to another date. ;-)
So, that was the start of our relationship. He had his little submissive
Pict and a German gal whose buttons he knew exactly how to push! He loved
to watch me explode...I'd get downright *angry* and *livid* and then he'd
laugh! He thought it was funny to get me really riled up about things. He
could talk circles around me by twisting my words around until I didn't even
know what I was talking about anymore! Oh...he was so infuriating! I
dropped him because I found him too emotionally exhausting! One minute
we'd have a really great time, talking and laughing, he could be extremely
charming and romantic, and then the next minute he had me totally infuriated
at him. Like a stick of dynomite, he could light my fuse! Boom! I'd
explode. After awhile, I simply had enough of that crap. I told him not to
bother coming around anymore.
A couple of years went by and then he showed up at my new place of work. He
told me he had changed. Ya, right! LOL...Oh would I please spend an
evening with him..."Please?" He pleaded.
Damnit! Fool me accepted the invitation. He told me that in the last two
years he learned how to fly an airplane. He was licensed to fly those
little Cessnas. He bragged about all these arial stunts he learned and how
he had terrorized his friends and even his mother. He had them all puking
even though he had promised them he wouldn't do stunts while they were
passengers. "Heidi, would you like to come fly with me?" he asked.
"Are you kidding? After all you've told me, you expect me to believe you'd
fly responsibly while I'm in that plane with you?"
"I promise I'll be good. If you come with me, I'll not pull any stunts."
He looked very serious, but I could not bring myself to say, "Yes."
I looked into his face and locked eyes with him and said, "No. I don't
trust you!" And I meant that. So, he took me home and that was
that...until...
...a couple more years went by. I was 22, he was 25. He showed up at my
work again. He seemed quieter, calmer, somehow more serious. He asked me
out for dinner. I thought, "O.k..there's something really weird going on."
I accepted the invitation. He picked me up from work...but this time he was
driving a *station wagon*. Oh my gawd! What happened to the Mustang?
"I've settled down," he said. "I'm not the same as I used to be."
While we were driving in this station wagon, he told me all about how he set
up this business, how he got this warehouse, and things were going great.
He still liked to fly, but he learned not to freak out his friends and that
he better get his act together. Then he stopped the car, turned to me and
said, "Heidi, I need a business partner." The look in his face betrayed
much more than that. All I could say was, "We'll see." Did he really
change? Was he really looking to settle down? He needed a business
partner? Woah... He really threw me off this time...Did he really mean it?
Did he really change? I was prepared to give him the chance to prove it.
He restarted the car and we resolved to simply have an enjoyable evening
together, talking about all kinds of things. Laughing about old times.
Wondering what happened to his Pictish "servant." LOL... I began to think,
"Hey, maybe this could work out." Maybe he has learned not to push my
buttons! And we really did have a nice evening together. After he dropped
me off at my apartment, he went home. Then about 1/2 hour later I received
a phonecall...
It was him, "Heidi, my alarm clock is broken. Can you give me a wake-up
call at 6:00 a.m. in the morning?" Well...push my button or what!
I exploded, "I WILL NOT!" and slammed down the phone! I thought to
myself, "Wake your own damn self up! I'm not some hotel lobby clerk!" How
dare he! Oh, I was livid! LOL...
And that's the last I heard of him (except of course what went through the
grapevine). LOL... He hadn't changed a bit...not one bit! ;-)
I was actually quite impressed to hear that the woman who he eventually
married managed to put up with him for seven years! I could barely get
through one evening!
Now, Mark...your turn! Tell us about one of your past relationships! ;-)
Heidi

One story I think I can safely tell (it was also a casual relationship)
is about a woman I met online when I lived in Irvine. It's not
a story I'm proud of, but it's funny. Feel free to laugh at me.

I responded to her personal ad and struck up a conversation with
her over the phone. She seemed pleasant enough and I asked
if she would like to meet. She agreed to meet at a nearby
Mexican bar that she liked.

I arrived at the pre-ordained time and waited. And waited. After
a good hour or so of waiting by myself in a totally empty bar,
I realized I had been stood up.

Unlike you who probably would have moved on (and lost the
chance for a good story), I was curious. I had her phone number
so I left her a polite but firm message just asking why she
had stood me up. If she didn't like me, I told her, that was cool
and there's nothing wrong with that. I said I hoped she
had a wonderful life and to try to be honest with people in the
future.

She called me back and gave me (what I learned later) was a story
that she had a personal emergency of some sort and wanted
to meet again. I agreed.

This time I only waited a half hour before giving up.

OK, now I was irked. I called her again, left a similar message about
how this was laughably nuts. Same thing, she called back with
another dog-ate-homework story and told me to meet her in
10 minutes.

She showed up.

I'll finish later. I have to run.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Andre Lieven]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated.
If I saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging
around to try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner of
the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

I think you're exaggerating.

Given Misandrist Graws claims about the survivors of the Titanic,
ya think ? <bg>

Post by PolishKnight
These men did clearly resonate with you at least in the sense
that they took the risk to ask you out, offered to pay your
way, and you accepted a first date with them.

Feminist Equality: The right to *be given free stuff by men*.

Post by PolishKnight
Surely, then, they couldn't have been all that bad.

Indeed. Had they been that bad, she'd have said " no, I won't
go out with you. ".

Had they indeed been that bad, and she still went, well, thats
the behavior of a *paid date*, IOW, a prositute.

Post by PolishKnight
You have a point that it didn't make a lot of sense for
me to spend a lot of time and money on American women
who may not have appreciated someone who made an effort
to make them feel welcome and appreciated when
there were other options available. It's a bit
of a no-brainer, isn't it? Yes, these women had
potential but on the first date, they largely acted
like 4 year olds with ADD.
Note that showing appreciation doesn't require someone
to say what someone wants to hear nor does difference
of opinion and little faux-pas indicate disharmony.

Exactly. Code words like " harmony " tend to indicate a
person whose views don't dare diverge.

Post by PolishKnight
A lot of this exists within oneself. I suppose
after traveling for so long (not just overseas, but
also locally in the states) and having had to grow
quite a bit that it's natural for me to find ways
to be harmonious internally.
This may explain, Heidi, why so many women prefer
to settle down near their ancestrial home while men
tend to roam a bit more.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
Maybe that doesn't apply to you, but I have seen a lot of women
who have a similar attitude who wind up as targets of men
who wrap such women around their fingers (and brag to us
over beers about it.) Men who bother to play these games
usually have their own insecurities as well.

If they're merely playing games, they will eventually be found out.
There aren't too many people that can carry on an act for any great
length of time. Eventually, they trip themselves up.

You'd be surprised!

Indeed, has the man hating loon ever studied politicians and
actors ?

Post by PolishKnight
On the contrary, people are expected to put on acts
all the time. In business, it's understood that people will
put on a friendly face for business associates even if
they dislike them or find their mannerisms "disharmonious".
Do you really think the clerk means "have a nice day"
when you pick up your groceries? :-) (I'm sure they
do, Canadians tend to be such nice, polite people! :-)

<bg>

Post by PolishKnight
You get the point, I hope: When _money_ is at stake,
it's not a problem for most people to put on an act.
Hmmm, what do most men risk for a date again?

Quite.

Post by PolishKnight
Of course, it's commonly argued that foreign women
also put on an act for citizenship. (Unsurprisingly,
I have already heard of stories of foreign MEN marrying
Canadian and American women for citizenship and these
women being shocked when the men leave them. Did you
notice in the last Olympics how many competitors
for Canada and the U.S. were Russian men who married
their partners and got citizenship in the last
year or so?)
Sometimes, people put on an act they even halfway believe.
That's the most dangerous for all parties concerned.
Sometimes people are just nuts.

Like Feminists...

Post by PolishKnight
Anyways, back to men on first dates: They don't even
have to put on an act for a great length of time
as you put it. Many men learn to do this for,
oh, say, 3 dates or so. I've heard of this several
times. The men say what it takes to get into her
pants and then they're off!

Kinba like the woman said what was necessary for her to get
three free meals... :-)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
Generally speaking, outside of those Eharmony commercials,
there will be an adjustment period for two people to
accomodate each other. People need to change along with
life events such as leaving home, going to school, moving
to a new city, etc. Why not have people change to
accomodate the person closest to them?

That person with whom you're on that *first* date is *not* a person
closest to you.

No, they're not.
However, the possibility exists that they may turn out to
be such a person.

Indeed, if they're auditioning for that role, it is logical to
not MS-treat them so early, eh ?

Post by PolishKnight
It's said that people act rudely in cities is because
of their assumption that the people they encounter daily
are probably total strangers so they act like total jerks.

Which suggests that all those folks don't believe in karma...

Post by PolishKnight
I love the line from Crocodile Dundee: "With millions of
people in New York, everyone must be real friendly!"

Post by Heidi Graw
More often than not they are virtual strangers. That first date,
however, gives the couple an opportunity to get to know one another
a little better.

I suppose we can look at this from a glass half-empty/half-full
situation: Does someone view a new person in their life
as the possible stepping stone to a wonderful relationship, or
rather as a stranger at the quickie-mart who gives them change
for a 20?
Not that either view determines anything absolutely.
As I said, my wife and I had a number of disasters when
we first met.

Post by Heidi Graw
If it works out fine, great. If not, leave!

Indeed, if a woman has put little effort into it other
than getting picked up, then this attitude applies.

Isn't it interesting that MIsandrist Graw suggests that
a woman has some sort of " right " to take all her marbles
home, after a " bad date ", while she cares not at all that
such a date means that most of the guy's marbles are already...

spent ?

Post by PolishKnight
This is why I think that many men wait until the
relationship has gotten moving a bit before showing
his darker side. (You know, taking the dishes out
of the oven :-)

Post by Heidi Graw
And sure, there are people who'll give their dates second,
third and perhaps even years worth of their time only to
discover that their first impressions were dead on and they've
wasted years trying to reform this person into someone *they* want
that person to be. I chose not to waste my time like that.

This is assuming, of course, that the person really knows
what they want that person to be.

Yep. It takes a self centered person to deny the possibility
that *they might learn that they were wrong about themselves*,
or, at least, their self assurance was not completely right.

Post by PolishKnight
Many marriages break up especially at the mid-mark where
you're at precisely because the couple outgrows each other or
they discover the priorities they had in youth didn't
work out for them later in life.

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I'm rather proud of the fact that I've changed significantly
over time. I've grown, learned, acknowledged some mistakes,
tried a number of things, and really gotten a lot out of life!

I'm glad to hear that, Mark.

Post by PolishKnight
Heidi, isn't it rather crazy for someone to plan their whole
life based upon their experiences and insights up until
their mid-20's?
For good or ill, people change and grow. It's a question of
whether they'll grow wiser and older or just older.

Sure, but it's even sweeter when you've started with someone who's
in tune with you right off the bat. ;-)

Good for you.

To some degree. If there is " soul mate sympaticoness " from
the start, that suggests that they couple hasn't yet explored
their differences, or, that they are claones of each other.

Post by PolishKnight
Looking back, I see a lot of women I probably was compatable
with and if things had been different, I might have settled
down with them.

Sure. A person who can be flexible about their non-core views
and desires, can fit in well with many others. Only those
that demand utter and total " perfection " find themselves
unhappy over it's nasty refusal to present it's self to them.

IOW, Maureen Dowd. <g>

Post by PolishKnight
On the other hand, as sweet as these women are, I was a
different person back then. I see the core of who
I am, of course, but if I hadn't gone out and grown
a bit I think I'd be less interesting.

Growth. Its normal and desirable in humans.

Post by PolishKnight
You sound like a country girl at heart. That's nice and
all and in that sense, maybe it's good for you to
find someone stable and in tune. No wonder you like
real estate. :-)
Me, I'm really messed up: I love Opera and guns. Hmmm, maybe
I should write an operetta about deer hunting... :-)

" Cheny, The Opera ". <bg>

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Hubby and I have also grown and changed over the years, too.
And we're still in tune with each other.

Good for you!

Post by Heidi Graw
Had I chosen a guy with whom I was in disharmony, who knows how
much further apart we may have grown over the years? It could have
gone either way...further apart or perhaps closer together.
I chose, however, to start off with someone I was in harmony with. I
believed that that would allow us a greater chance at actually staying
together. For us, this worked. ;-)

Post by PolishKnight
Ironically, if I had judged my wife based upon our first
experiences with each other we wouldn't be together.
We had a lot of disasters that almost belong in a comedy!

...a comedy of errors is no big deal. However, if Galena had been
arrogant, bossy and totally self-absorbed, I doubt you would have
hung around for much longer.

As I said, I don't really know if these men were necessarily
totally self-absorbed. Presumably, they did come to pick
you up and offer to pay your way.

Indeed. Its absurd to claim that someone offering to pay and
care for another, is " self absorbed ".

OTOH, it IS logical to state that someone who *only takes
during the date*, IS the real self absorbed one...

" ( The woman ) doesn't have to do anything more on the date
than show up... he has to do all the work. "

" The Rules ", Ellen Fein, Sherrie Schneider.

Post by PolishKnight
But yes, she did have a rough edge when I met her and it's
still there. People laugh at how she appears sweet
and innocent but she can be a fireball.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
But... we both recognized that we're good people (as many
third parties like to say about us) and we share the same
goals and ideals. She considered some of my input (and learned
to enjoy Opera) and I learned to keep my nails clipped. :-)

Great...but notice: You *shared*. You also have the *same* goals and
ideals. You found a woman who said exactly all that what you wanted
to hear! ;-)

No... but the core things that mattered were there. We didn't
sweat the small stuff.

Like her making you pay for all the drinks ? <bg>

( I'm not suggesting she did that, I'm just contrasting that with
Misandrist Graw's own consumptive tale )

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
If I didn't like what was revealed, that second date simply didn't
happen. I was not about to make excuses for these guys, give them
a second chance, or whatever. If you didn't make a good first
impression, then forget it!
Heidi

With such a charming attitude, it's difficult to understand
why men such as myself didn't want to pursue local North
American women. :-)

I'll tell you about one of those arrogant bossy types and how they

Here Misandrist Graw makes the elementary MS-take of failing to grasp:

" The singular of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

If ONE guy was boorish on a date, why should any other man carry the
guilt for that ?

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
1. He'd pick the time and place...o.k...no problem. This allowed me
to see what sort of places he liked.

Hey, hes paying and taking you *out*. Yeah, his wallet, his choice.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
2. Then when I wanted to order the kind of drink I prefered, he'd say,
"No...try this one, it's cheaper."...Huh?

A man after my own heart! (hug) :-)

<bg>

Post by PolishKnight
Seriously though, so friggin' what? He's paying, yes?

Ya know ? Its interesting that women such as Misandrist Graw
demand so stridently their own right to choice, yet are
MS-sing in action when the bills for their choices show up..

Post by PolishKnight
Women, on the other hand, rarely offer to pay for a man's
way on a first date whether the drinks are on sale or not.
You even said that women in your area would only go out
to meet men when they could pay half price.

Indeed. Makes our point, it does.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
3. When it came time to order the meal, he wouldn't allow me to see the
menu. He'd say, "We'll have this that and the other thing." ...Huh?

Ok, now that was rude. He should at least have asked if
you liked a particular thing. My wife did this to me too,
BTW. We went out to a restaurant and she picked out
everything. But she did ensure that what she ordered
would be to my taste.

Sure.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
4. The conversation would revolve around all the things that *he* had
accomplished. He'd talk about his work, his investments, what he bought,
how much he's worth, where he goes to buy his stuff. And whenever I
want to add to the conversation, he'd interrupt me and carry on
describing what *he* was into.

Most job applicants tend to have the work of getting across what they
have to offer...

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
O.k....it was obvious to me he wasn't interested in any I had to
say about myself.

" Now, enough about me. How do you like me so far ? "

Post by PolishKnight
Ok... Now I must be on your side here. A host should
definitely give a chance for you to get a word in edgewise.
Besides, doesn't he want to know what kind of woman
you are?

Based on her dating criteria, its well possible that he already
knew...

Post by PolishKnight
I don't know which is worse: What you described or the
women who would just sit and wait for me to get the
conversation going and I would have to pull teeth.

How about, have to deal with either sex's boorish behavior AND have
to pay for it all... ?

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
5. At the end of the evening, he'd say, "I'll pick you up tomorrow
at such a such time." Huh?
My answer, "You will do no such thing! Good-bye!" ...and I
closed the door. ;-)

Fair enough. It sounds like the guy probably didn't get
fazed by this too much. :-)

Sure. Hes trying quantity over quality. One can easily surmise that
Misandrist Graw's boorish rejoiner wasn't her first one that evening...

Post by PolishKnight
At the same time, maybe he found a woman who'd like him.
He has investments and "stuff."
Both of us apparently didn't get along with the crowd.

Post by Heidi Graw
Yes, Mark, I closed the door on a guy who owned an apartment building
in the West End of Vancouver. He was worth millions. But, you know
what? I didn't like this guy! There was no way that I could get
along with such a fellow!

Come now. "No way?" Like me, you moved onto greener pastures.

Indeed, and you did it, without trying to invoke drama.

Post by PolishKnight
I at least acknowledge that while I didn't exactly
get turned on by the behaviour of the American women I dated
I do see ways I could have worked things out with many
of them. You at least had him taking you out and offering
to pay your way which is more than most men get.

Of course, but to acknowledge that he was giving him MORE than
she gave him, well, you never see a WomenFirster doing that !

Post by PolishKnight
But... then again... I'm not exactly a winner either
on paper. I'm short, not exactly loaded. Probably many
of these women did go out with these guys and they
wound up having to settle for a date with... er... me
because they were too fussy. :-)

Or, too unrealistic...

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
He was simply too bossy and inconsiderate of me.

Heidi, all throughout this post I didn't hear ONE thing
you did for him. Nada.

Indeed. Bet that the thought of doing *what she expected from
him*, FOR him, never ever crossed her mind...

Post by PolishKnight
It's possible that he turned out to be such a jerk
because the women he met previously didn't set
much of an example either. Maybe as far as he's
concerned, the date went well because you didn't act
much differently than many other women do on a SUCCESSFUL
date.

Bingo !

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
I also did not want to
waste my time and effort retraining him. His behavior was too
extreme for me to believe that I could convince him to be a little more
thoughtful about what I liked or what I may have wanted to do. So, I
dropped him...and I have no regrets! ;-)

From what you've described, he doesn't really seem
all that extreme. So he blabbed on about himself
and didn't blow a lot of money. Horrors! Has Amnesty International
been notified? :-)

Ya know ? If she didn't get a Rock, its Pearl Harbor ?

Man, the drama of the days of her lives....

Ptui on that.

And, the fact that loads of men are saying that, is why harridans
such as Misandrist Graw and Maureen Dowd are screaming...

Andre

[Jill]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated.
If I saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging
around to try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner of
the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

I think you're exaggerating.

Given Misandrist Graws claims about the survivors of the Titanic,
ya think ? <bg>

Hi Andre,

I've got Misandrist Graw blocked and missed her claims about the
survivors of the Titanic. Could you briefly fill me in on what I
missed (or didn't miss as is probably more accurately the case :)

[PolishKnight]

Post by Jill

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated.
If I saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging
around to try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner of
the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

I think you're exaggerating.

Given Misandrist Graws claims about the survivors of the Titanic,
ya think ? <bg>

Hi Andre,
I've got Misandrist Graw blocked and missed her claims about the
survivors of the Titanic. Could you briefly fill me in on what I
missed (or didn't miss as is probably more accurately the case :)

My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Jill]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated.
If I saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging
around to try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner of
the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

I think you're exaggerating.

Given Misandrist Graws claims about the survivors of the Titanic,
ya think ? <bg>

Hi Andre,
I've got Misandrist Graw blocked and missed her claims about the
survivors of the Titanic. Could you briefly fill me in on what I
missed (or didn't miss as is probably more accurately the case :)

My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.
regards,
PolishKnight

Well that's par for the course from her I suppose. You can't really
blame her for being confused by numbers though since as Barbie said to
the sisterhood that "Math is hard." <g>

I was thinking perhaps Ms. Graw was doing a Mrs. Clinton and claiming
all the First Class Widows had it harder because they had to live on
while their husbands took the "easier" way out by dying.

[Ken Chaddock]

Post by Jill

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated.
If I saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging
around to try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner of
the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

I think you're exaggerating.

Given Misandrist Graws claims about the survivors of the Titanic,
ya think ? <bg>

Hi Andre,
I've got Misandrist Graw blocked and missed her claims about the
survivors of the Titanic. Could you briefly fill me in on what I
missed (or didn't miss as is probably more accurately the case :)

My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.
regards,
PolishKnight

Well that's par for the course from her I suppose. You can't really
blame her for being confused by numbers though since as Barbie said to
the sisterhood that "Math is hard." <g>
I was thinking perhaps Ms. Graw was doing a Mrs. Clinton and claiming
all the First Class Widows had it harder because they had to live on
while their husbands took the "easier" way out by dying.

She (Heidi) also refused to accept a principle finding of the Royal
Commission into the sinking that found that an "Overzealous" enforcement
of the "women and children first" principle probably cost 700 men their
lives unnecessarily since, even if *every single* woman and child had
been rescued, there would still have been almost 700 seats in life boats
for men, seats that men were deliberately kept out of "in case" more
women and children showed up to claim a place.
Interestingly enough, the commission didn't didn't quibble about the
validity of the "women and children first" principle, only with how the
Titanic officers had enforced it and the resultant unnecessary loss of
(male) lives.

...Ken

[PolishKnight]

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by Jill

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated.
If I saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging
around to try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner of
the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

I think you're exaggerating.

Given Misandrist Graws claims about the survivors of the Titanic,
ya think ? <bg>

Hi Andre,
I've got Misandrist Graw blocked and missed her claims about the
survivors of the Titanic. Could you briefly fill me in on what I
missed (or didn't miss as is probably more accurately the case :)

My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.
regards,
PolishKnight

Well that's par for the course from her I suppose. You can't really
blame her for being confused by numbers though since as Barbie said to
the sisterhood that "Math is hard." <g>
I was thinking perhaps Ms. Graw was doing a Mrs. Clinton and claiming
all the First Class Widows had it harder because they had to live on
while their husbands took the "easier" way out by dying.

She (Heidi) also refused to accept a principle finding of the Royal
Commission into the sinking that found that an "Overzealous" enforcement
of the "women and children first" principle probably cost 700 men their
lives unnecessarily since, even if *every single* woman and child had
been rescued, there would still have been almost 700 seats in life boats
for men, seats that men were deliberately kept out of "in case" more
women and children showed up to claim a place.
Interestingly enough, the commission didn't didn't quibble about the
validity of the "women and children first" principle, only with how the
Titanic officers had enforced it and the resultant unnecessary loss of
(male) lives.
...Ken

And this was why in the film Titanic, they felt a need to try
to spin things a bit to assage feminist guilt and protect victim
entitlement thinking: The villian exploited a child
to get a lifeboat seat, men protested the women and children
first rule and a man was shot, and the woman lead offers to
not take her lifeboat seat to stay by her lover's side.

All of this allowed teenage girls and 30 something women,
the primary audience members, to feel good about themselves
while still enjoying the ending where the man sacrifices
his life and gives them the traditional chivalric
treatment they crave anyway. "I love you just as you
are, Bridget Jones"

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.

<chuckle> Mark, what I find amusing is that both Andre and Jill have me in
their killfile. Yet, whenever my words are carried forward in other
people's posts, they can't help themselves from refraining to comment on
whatever snippets had been written by me. Jill even asks what I've written
about the Titanic disaster! I'm in their killfile! Why the heck are they
still interested in what I'm writing?

When I killfile people, I also ignore all that what had been carried forward
by others!

Anyway, since Jill is still so interested in what I'm writing, you might
pass along the following:

In a nutshell, the Titanic disaster had it that "Women and children go
first, provided there is a man along with them!" And that is undeniable!

Heidi

[Ken Chaddock]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.

In a nutshell, the Titanic disaster had it that "Women and children go
first, provided there is a man along with them!" And that is undeniable!

A claim that I, amount others, showed was completely unfounded and
certainly *not* supported by the fact that, except for the boat crews,
the first 12 life boats left the ship with *only* women and children* on
board and than when the tallies are counted, there were at least 700 men
who unnecessarily lost their lives (there were over 700 empty seats in
life boats) because they were deliberately kept out of the boats by
armed ship's officers who were under instruction to reserve the seats
for "women and children" and who only started to allow men to fill the
empty seats when if became blatantly obvious that there would be no more
women and children getting in. The Royal Commission strongly criticized
the line because of this, even though they upheld the general "women and
children first" principle !

...Ken

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

there were at least 700 men who unnecessarily lost their lives (there were
over 700 empty seats in life boats) because they were deliberately kept out
of the boats by armed ship's officers who were under instruction to reserve
the seats for "women and children"

Yes, *armed* officers kept the general rabble of men away from those
lifeboats. The *few* elite, using weapons, had to *force* the *general
group* of men to uphold that code of chivalry.

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

there were at least 700 men who unnecessarily lost their lives (there were
over 700 empty seats in life boats) because they were deliberately kept out
of the boats by armed ship's officers who were under instruction to reserve
the seats for "women and children"

Yes, *armed* officers kept the general rabble of men away from those
lifeboats. The *few* elite, using weapons, had to *force* the *general
group* of men to uphold that code of chivalry.
Heidi

Ken's point is that the code of chivalry didn't exclude men
from using empty seats when no women or children were available!

Of course, you're too busy trying to obfuscate the easily
observed fact that women enjoyed special privileges
ahead of men due to sexism that feminism, an ideology
supposedly dedicated to equality, has done little to address
since it's a female supremist philosophy little different
than white supremicism.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Ken Chaddock]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

there were at least 700 men who unnecessarily lost their lives (there were
over 700 empty seats in life boats) because they were deliberately kept out
of the boats by armed ship's officers who were under instruction to reserve
the seats for "women and children"

Yes, *armed* officers kept the general rabble of men away from those
lifeboats. The *few* elite, using weapons, had to *force* the *general
group* of men to uphold that code of chivalry.

Considering that there were vastly MORE lifeboat spaces that there were
"women and children" to fill them, the expectation that husbands should
be allowed to accompany their wives and children wasn't an unrealistic
one...the commission was *QUITE* clear with their condemnation of the
way the line's officers prevented men from accompanying their
families...you make it sound as if men were trying to put women and
children out of the boats, which is quite a prejudicial and completely
inaccurate spin on the whole tragedy...

...Ken

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.

<chuckle> Mark, what I find amusing is that both Andre and Jill have me in
their killfile. Yet, whenever my words are carried forward in other
people's posts, they can't help themselves from refraining to comment on
whatever snippets had been written by me. Jill even asks what I've written
about the Titanic disaster! I'm in their killfile! Why the heck are they
still interested in what I'm writing?
When I killfile people, I also ignore all that what had been carried forward
by others!
Anyway, since Jill is still so interested in what I'm writing, you might
In a nutshell, the Titanic disaster had it that "Women and children go
first, provided there is a man along with them!" And that is undeniable!
Heidi

This doesn't make sense. Did this mean that women and children
were denied lifeboat space when they didn't have a male
escort?

I do deny it if only because I imagine if something like this
had happened, feminists would have wailed about it so loud
it could be heard in the next galaxy.

regards,
PolishKnight

[GL Fowler]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.

<chuckle> Mark, what I find amusing is that both Andre and Jill have me in
their killfile. Yet, whenever my words are carried forward in other
people's posts, they can't help themselves from refraining to comment on
whatever snippets had been written by me. Jill even asks what I've written
about the Titanic disaster! I'm in their killfile! Why the heck are they
still interested in what I'm writing?
When I killfile people, I also ignore all that what had been carried forward
by others!
Anyway, since Jill is still so interested in what I'm writing, you might
In a nutshell, the Titanic disaster had it that "Women and children go
first, provided there is a man along with them!" And that is undeniable!
Heidi

This doesn't make sense. Did this mean that women and children
were denied lifeboat space when they didn't have a male
escort?
I do deny it if only because I imagine if something like this
had happened, feminists would have wailed about it so loud
it could be heard in the next galaxy.
regards,
PolishKnight

Your graciousness applauded Mark, for limiting the analogy to such a
small space!!

Jerry
A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain

[PolishKnight]

Post by GL Fowler

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
My understanding, Jill, is that Heidi claimed that since
an equal number of survivors were men, then there wasn't
a big deal. Of course, this submerged (pun intentional)
the fact that most of the crew and passengers were men.

<chuckle> Mark, what I find amusing is that both Andre and Jill have me in
their killfile. Yet, whenever my words are carried forward in other
people's posts, they can't help themselves from refraining to comment on
whatever snippets had been written by me. Jill even asks what I've written
about the Titanic disaster! I'm in their killfile! Why the heck are they
still interested in what I'm writing?
When I killfile people, I also ignore all that what had been carried forward
by others!
Anyway, since Jill is still so interested in what I'm writing, you might
In a nutshell, the Titanic disaster had it that "Women and children go
first, provided there is a man along with them!" And that is undeniable!
Heidi

This doesn't make sense. Did this mean that women and children
were denied lifeboat space when they didn't have a male
escort?
I do deny it if only because I imagine if something like this
had happened, feminists would have wailed about it so loud
it could be heard in the next galaxy.
regards,
PolishKnight

Your graciousness applauded Mark, for limiting the analogy to such a
small space!!
Jerry
A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain

I suppose I could have said they'd cry loud enough to be heard
in the next mega-cluster. :-)

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
In a nutshell, the Titanic disaster had it that "Women and children go
first, provided there is a man along with them!" And that is undeniable!

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
This doesn't make sense. Did this mean that women and children
were denied lifeboat space when they didn't have a male
escort?

No, I'm merely saying that it was a case of "Women and children first,
provided there is a man along with them!" Take a look at the following
numbers:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5

I did a recount of the 712 survivors and catagorized them as follows:
(Note: a miscount of 8 people).

3rd Class:

Women age 19 and over: 71
Girls age 18 and under: 35
Men age 19 and over: 56
Boys age 18 and under: 18


2nd Class:

Women age 19 and over: 73
Girls age 18 and under: 22
Men age 19 and over: 13
Boys age 18 and under: 11


1st Class:

Women age 19 and over: 128
Girls age 18 and under: 8
Men age 19 and over: 54
Boys age 18 and under: 6


Crew: Engine, Deck, Victualling (food service), A la Carte (food service):

Women age 19 and over: 19 (17 Victualling, 2 A la Carte)
Men age 19 and over: 188 (71 Engine, 43 Deck, 73 Victualling, 1 A la
Carte)
Boys age 18 and under: 2 (A la Carte)

Summary of survivors:

Women 19 and over: 291
Girls 18 and under: 65
Men 19 and over: 311
Boys 18 and under: 37

Female survivors: 356
Male survivors: 348

Total 704, (missed counting 8 people somewhere in that list)

My comment: "Women and children first, provided there is a man with them"
still stands! The survivor list bears this out.

Of the 1496 victims, the site lists the following:


1267 men age 19 and over died.
86 women age 19 and over died.
106 boys age 18 and under died.
37 girls age 18 and under died.



Women and children: 229

Females: 123

Males: 1,373

The ship carried about 1580 men, 371 women, 146 boys and 102 girls.

So, despite this wish on the part of the ship authorities to implement
"Women and children first," we see that despite that effort, 229 women and
children perished for a variety of reasons.

And of the men who survived, 188 were crew and 123 were passengers. Staff
from Engine and Victualling were the *majority* crew members.

Of significance, too, are the numbers of *first class* women who survived...
128 compared to 73 for 2nd class and 71 for 3rd class.

I also find it interesting regarding 2nd class men...only 13 of them
survived compared to 56 of 3rd class and 54 of 1st class men. It looks to
me that middle class men "2nd class" bore the brunt of victimization.
Efforts to safe and rescue 3rd class and 1st class men were made.

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
In a nutshell, the Titanic disaster had it that "Women and children go
first, provided there is a man along with them!" And that is undeniable!

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
This doesn't make sense. Did this mean that women and children
were denied lifeboat space when they didn't have a male
escort?

No, I'm merely saying that it was a case of "Women and children first,
provided there is a man along with them!" Take a look at the following

So what is your point? That because a male crew member was
on each lifeboat to help direct rowing the women to safety... so?
This only means that the men being present were there for
logistics sake.

Post by Heidi Graw
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
(Note: a miscount of 8 people).
Women age 19 and over: 71
Girls age 18 and under: 35
Men age 19 and over: 56
Boys age 18 and under: 18
Women age 19 and over: 73
Girls age 18 and under: 22
Men age 19 and over: 13
Boys age 18 and under: 11
Women age 19 and over: 128
Girls age 18 and under: 8
Men age 19 and over: 54
Boys age 18 and under: 6
Women age 19 and over: 19 (17 Victualling, 2 A la Carte)
Men age 19 and over: 188 (71 Engine, 43 Deck, 73 Victualling, 1 A la
Carte)
Boys age 18 and under: 2 (A la Carte)
Women 19 and over: 291
Girls 18 and under: 65
Men 19 and over: 311
Boys 18 and under: 37
Female survivors: 356
Male survivors: 348
Total 704, (missed counting 8 people somewhere in that list)
My comment: "Women and children first, provided there is a man with them"
still stands! The survivor list bears this out.
1267 men age 19 and over died.
86 women age 19 and over died.
106 boys age 18 and under died.
37 girls age 18 and under died.
Women and children: 229
Females: 123
Males: 1,373
The ship carried about 1580 men, 371 women, 146 boys and 102 girls.
So, despite this wish on the part of the ship authorities to implement
"Women and children first," we see that despite that effort, 229 women and
children perished for a variety of reasons.

Once again, so?

How does this change the fact that the policy was "women and children
first"
with the crew only there to help the women?

Post by Heidi Graw
And of the men who survived, 188 were crew and 123 were passengers. Staff
from Engine and Victualling were the *majority* crew members.
Of significance, too, are the numbers of *first class* women who survived...
128 compared to 73 for 2nd class and 71 for 3rd class.
I also find it interesting regarding 2nd class men...only 13 of them
survived compared to 56 of 3rd class and 54 of 1st class men. It looks to
me that middle class men "2nd class" bore the brunt of victimization.
Efforts to safe and rescue 3rd class and 1st class men were made.
Heidi

Heidi, you're really bending over backwards to deny the obvious:
Women enjoyed special treatment on the Titanic.

I'm reminded of David Irving, the Holocaust revisionist. Just drop
it Heidi, you can't win this one and you're only providing an easy
target for the men here.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
So what is your point? That because a male crew member was
on each lifeboat to help direct rowing the women to safety... so?

Of the survivors we have 291 adult women and 311 adult men (188 of those
were crew). How many rowers did any of these boats require?

Post by PolishKnight
How does this change the fact that the policy was "women and children
first"
with the crew only there to help the women?

Indeed, for every one woman there was a man to help her.

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
So what is your point? That because a male crew member was
on each lifeboat to help direct rowing the women to safety... so?

Of the survivors we have 291 adult women and 311 adult men (188 of those
were crew). How many rowers did any of these boats require?

Post by PolishKnight
How does this change the fact that the policy was "women and children
first"
with the crew only there to help the women?

Indeed, for every one woman there was a man to help her.
Heidi

Heidi, do you really have no shame?

The 311 adult men were there not to "help" the women
but to fill _some_ of the spaces on the boats that
were available after the women had filled them first.
You know, as in "women and children first?"

You were saying?

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
So what is your point? That because a male crew member was
on each lifeboat to help direct rowing the women to safety... so?

Of the survivors we have 291 adult women and 311 adult men (188 of those
were crew). How many rowers did any of these boats require?

Post by PolishKnight
How does this change the fact that the policy was "women and children
first"
with the crew only there to help the women?

Indeed, for every one woman there was a man to help her.

Heidi, do you really have no shame?

Just reporting facts...hardcore numbers!

Post by PolishKnight
The 311 adult men were there not to "help" the women
but to fill _some_ of the spaces on the boats that
were available after the women had filled them first.
You know, as in "women and children first?"

Uhuh...and 229 women and children *died.*

Of the 1496 victims, the site lists the following:

1267 men age 19 and over died.
86 women age 19 and over died.
106 boys age 18 and under died.
37 girls age 18 and under died.

Women and children: 229

Post by PolishKnight
You were saying?

"Women and children first, provided there are men with them."

Numbers don't lie, Mark.

Heidi

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
So what is your point? That because a male crew member was
on each lifeboat to help direct rowing the women to safety... so?

Of the survivors we have 291 adult women and 311 adult men (188 of those
were crew). How many rowers did any of these boats require?

Post by PolishKnight
How does this change the fact that the policy was "women and children
first"
with the crew only there to help the women?

Indeed, for every one woman there was a man to help her.

Heidi, do you really have no shame?

Just reporting facts...hardcore numbers!

Versus softcore numbers?

You're cherry picking. The hardcore numbers clearly show
that women had outstanding survival rates as would be expected
with a policy of "women and children first" that even superceded
cultural class! You have to put on some pretty foggy glasses
to find "hardcore numbers" to imply otherwise.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
The 311 adult men were there not to "help" the women
but to fill _some_ of the spaces on the boats that
were available after the women had filled them first.
You know, as in "women and children first?"

Uhuh...and 229 women and children *died.*

The policy is women and children first, not women and children
"only". Do you want a dictionary.com reference to understand
the difference between the two terms?

Post by Heidi Graw
1267 men age 19 and over died.
86 women age 19 and over died.
106 boys age 18 and under died.
37 girls age 18 and under died.
Women and children: 229

I didn't know they ID'd boys to get on the lifeboats. :-)

The hard numbers: 14.7X more men than women died on
the Titanic.

Indeed, women scrambling for the lifeboats leaving their
husbands and sons 18 years old and over to die is not bragged
about during Women's History month, is it? :-)

Didja also notice that more boys died than women? or girls?
Harecore numbers!

Really, this moment shows precisely how well western men
have treated women throughout history and your attempt
to obfuscate it also shows how little feminism has done
for western civilization other than look for handouts and goodies.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
You were saying?

"Women and children first, provided there are men with them."
Numbers don't lie, Mark.
Heidi

No, they don't. But it takes some pretty elaborate contortions
with numbers to obfuscate the obvious reality that women
and children were given incredible first priority to men during
the Titanic lifeboat disaster. You're only providing low hanging
fruit for the MRA here. Are you taking over for Lefty? :-)

regards,
PolishKnight

[Andre Lieven]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
So what is your point? That because a male crew member was
on each lifeboat to help direct rowing the women to safety... so?

Of the survivors we have 291 adult women and 311 adult men (188 of
those were crew). How many rowers did any of these boats require?

Post by PolishKnight
How does this change the fact that the policy was "women and children
first" with the crew only there to help the women?

Indeed, for every one woman there was a man to help her.

Heidi, do you really have no shame?

Mark... *You're kidding*, right ?

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Just reporting facts...hardcore numbers!

Versus softcore numbers?
You're cherry picking.

Of course, she is. WomenFirsters *always* do that.

The real set of numbers that Misandrist Graw CANNOT face/debate/
refute is this one:

Titanis Survival Rates, by Sex:

Men Women
1st Class: 34% 97%
2nd Class: 8% 84%
3rd Class: 12% 55%

In no class, did women lose even half their numbers.
In no class, did men *save* over a third of theirs.

Post by PolishKnight
The hardcore numbers clearly show
that women had outstanding survival rates as would be expected
with a policy of "women and children first" that even superceded
cultural class! You have to put on some pretty foggy glasses
to find "hardcore numbers" to imply otherwise.

Thats why it is a mattre of cold hard fact that Feminism IS a brain
rotting disease. Leaving it's self inflicted victims UNABLE to do
even elementary arithmetic.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
The 311 adult men were there not to "help" the women
but to fill _some_ of the spaces on the boats that
were available after the women had filled them first.
You know, as in "women and children first?"

Uhuh...and 229 women and children *died.*

The policy is women and children first, not women and children
"only". Do you want a dictionary.com reference to understand
the difference between the two terms?

More proof wrt brain rot...

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
1267 men age 19 and over died.
86 women age 19 and over died.
106 boys age 18 and under died.
37 girls age 18 and under died.
Women and children: 229

I didn't know they ID'd boys to get on the lifeboats. :-)
The hard numbers: 14.7X more men than women died on
the Titanic.
Indeed, women scrambling for the lifeboats leaving their
husbands and sons 18 years old and over to die is not bragged
about during Women's History month, is it? :-)

Yet, it is the... truth...

Post by PolishKnight
Didja also notice that more boys died than women? or girls?

Not girls, Mark. 86 women. 37 girls.

Post by PolishKnight
Harecore numbers!
Really, this moment shows precisely how well western men
have treated women throughout history and your attempt
to obfuscate it also shows how little feminism has done
for western civilization other than look for handouts and goodies.

Truth.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by PolishKnight
You were saying?

"Women and children first, provided there are men with them."
Numbers don't lie, Mark.
Heidi

No, they don't. But it takes some pretty elaborate contortions
with numbers to obfuscate the obvious reality that women
and children were given incredible first priority to men during
the Titanic lifeboat disaster. You're only providing low hanging
fruit for the MRA here. Are you taking over for Lefty? :-)

You hadn't noticed ? <bg>

Andre

[Andre Lieven]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
So what is your point? That because a male crew member was
on each lifeboat to help direct rowing the women to safety... so?

Of the survivors we have 291 adult women and 311 adult men (188 of those
were crew). How many rowers did any of these boats require?

Post by PolishKnight
How does this change the fact that the policy was "women and children
first" with the crew only there to help the women?

Indeed, for every one woman there was a man to help her.
Heidi

Heidi, do you really have no shame?
The 311 adult men were there not to "help" the women
but to fill _some_ of the spaces on the boats that
were available after the women had filled them first.
You know, as in "women and children first?"
You were saying?

Nothing but misandristic inanities, Mark. Its all she ever did.

To try to claim that, unless *all* women are rescued, while *no*
men are, is the sole " test " of male chivalry, is beyond absurd.

But, its not news that WomenFirster bigots continue to be absurd...
Their misandrous bigotry offers them no other choice.

Andre

[GL Fowler]

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
So what is your point? That because a male crew member was
on each lifeboat to help direct rowing the women to safety... so?

Of the survivors we have 291 adult women and 311 adult men (188 of those
were crew). How many rowers did any of these boats require?

Post by PolishKnight
How does this change the fact that the policy was "women and children
first"
with the crew only there to help the women?

Indeed, for every one woman there was a man to help her.
Heidi

Heidi, do you really have no shame?

Now THAT is a rhetorical question!!

Post by PolishKnight
The 311 adult men were there not to "help" the women
but to fill _some_ of the spaces on the boats that
were available after the women had filled them first.
You know, as in "women and children first?"
You were saying?
regards,
PolishKnight

A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Heidi Graw
In a nutshell, the Titanic disaster had it that "Women and children go
first, provided there is a man along with them!" And that is undeniable!
Heidi

That's not true. Here's a website and some woman's claim I argued which
provides for great reading:

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Titanic/passengers.htm

Post by Heidi Graw
You asked if the titanic sunk today, how things would pan out - you
might want to look at the statistics of who died before you use that as
your example.
Because, if you do a bit of research, you'd find that more men (338)
survived the titanic than women (319). The stats I found didn't take
into account the genders of the children survivors (56) so perhaps more
women did survive, but certainly not by much. Either way, the numbers
were rather close to equal.

My Reply:
Let's look at this without the Crew for a second because we do not
know how many total male and female crew members there were and I am
assuming they were mostly male. Also, keep in mind that the total
survival rate on the titanic was roughly 34%. Without crew, we have a
total of: 805 men which 146 survived (survival rate of roughly 18%),
402 women which 296 survived (survival rate of roughly 74%), and for
kicks, the gender ambiguous children at a total of 109 children which
56 survived (survival rate 51%). By the way, I wonder how many male
children were left to die so that women would have a seat.

With Crew:
With crew assuming the unaccounted crew were all men: total survival
rate for men is roughly 22%.
With crew assuming the unaccounted crew were all women: total survival
rate for women is roughly 29% (which is still higher than men).

In regards to 4th class women and children vs 4 class men and 1st class
men:
4th class Women and children's total deaths do not come close to the
number of men who died in
4th class and only surpass 1st class men by 23 dead bodies.

If you were to board a doomed ship today and given the option of having
an 18 percent survival rate or a 74 percent survival rate, which one
would you choose? ;)

For your reading pleasure from the website:

"The richest passenger aboard was multi-millionaire John Jacob Astor.
He was travelling with his second wife, Madeleine, who was five months
pregnant. JJ Astor did not survive but his wife did."

Doing some research on this guy, it turns out he apparently put the
value of dogs over his own life:

"His body, which was badly crushed, was recovered on Monday, April 22nd

by the cable ship McKay-Bennett. It is widely believed that as the ship

was sinking, Astor rushed below deck to free the dogs trapped in their
cages. He was killed when one of the ship's huge funnels broke free of
its ropes and crushed him, along with many others."

Also from the link provided:

"Millionaire Benjamin Guggenheim was travelling on the Titanic with a
lady friend. His wife and family were at home in New York. Guggenheim
and his manservant helped women and children into lifeboats. When all
the boats had gone they changed into their best clothes and prepared to

'Die like gentlemen.'"

Regards...

[Andre Lieven]

Post by Jill

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Heidi Graw
Well...that's something I never bothered to do with the men I dated.
If I saw something about them I didn't like, I didn't bother hanging
around to try to convert them into *my* way.

Indeed! You waited for a man who told you what you wanted to hear.
Oh, wait, I really should rephrase that. :-)

No need to rephrase that, because that is exactly true. If the manner
of the man's behavior and his words did not resonate with mine in any
harmonious sort of way, then I walked! I find disharmony far too
emotionally draining. I prefer to get along with the men in my social
circle.

I think you're exaggerating.

Given Misandrist Graws claims about the survivors of the Titanic,
ya think ? <bg>

Hi Andre,
I've got Misandrist Graw blocked and missed her claims about the
survivors of the Titanic. Could you briefly fill me in on what I
missed (or didn't miss as is probably more accurately the case :)

I only saw her claims when Mark's rebuttals of them included them.

Basically, the fact that women from 3rd class had a far greater
survival rate than men from first, somehow showed that men looked
after themselves... Its insane, but so is she.

Mark retitled a part of that thread with the word " Titanic " in
it, so it should be findable.

Andre

[PolishKnight]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I have made serious progress in adjusting people's attitudes,
especially
women's, by dumping women who desperated wanted a man to
support them but when they revealed selfish attitudes I told them
to adjust their attitude. When they didn't, I walked.

Ya, I walked, too, when I came across men who thought they could be the
boss of me. I never could stand those arrogant self absorbed bossy types.
The guy had to demonstrate at least some minimal level of thoughtfulness.
If the whole evening passed by during which he never bothered to ask my
opinion or asked anything about me, he would not get that second date with
me. I don't play satellite to men who believe they are the centre of the
universe, just as I don't expect the man to be that satellite around me
either.

Hello Heidi,

I demonstrated a "minimal level of thoughtfulness" by
communicating my desires to them in a responsible way.

I was just thinking about this kind of situation with relationships
in general. People often will just try to slowly or quietly
distance themselves from other people rather than risk offending
them or getting into an argument. Sometimes, that's entirely
appropriate. I learned in these discussions that many
apparently thoughtless people aren't that way by accident:
They enjoy being jerks! :-) (Now where's that loose tea? :-)

There's another advantage in the passive-aggressive style of
communication: It leaves the other person in a position of
constantly being overthoughtful and trying to avoid being
offensive. Looking back at when some women
dumped me, I realized LONG later that it was over something
I didn't realize at the time and that was incredibly petty.
Of course, to be fair, I dumped some perfectly
good women over petty things too.

I can't resist the urge to observe you claim that you don't
require men to be a satellite for you but you didn't mind
taking advantage of opportunities to scarf free drinks
off of them or having them put on a dog and pony show
for the chance of a "second date".

Post by Heidi Graw
If men are from Mars and women from Venus, we do not orbit around each
other. We live in seperate worlds, doing our own thang, having dominion
over our own seperate interests.

Nonsense!

You're a meat puppet that has to carefully understand and learn
the rules of the universe around you to survive on a daily basis.

The only illusion we have of any such "control" is when we spend
money. Otherwise, we only _interact_ at best with "seperate"
interests and even those often involve other people in their own
worlds.

Post by Heidi Graw
And should the mood strike us, we may even
choose to get together in mixed company and spend our time arguing! We
could also negotiate a peace treaty. ;-)

I remember one cute quote that says when people offer to
meet you halfway, they're usually standing on the dividing line. :-)

I have found through personal experience that people rarely
change their mind through arguing. At least not right away.
Perhaps because many times a convincing argument is made through
sophistry or outright deception and people learn to not
change their minds too quickly until they've had a chance
to think things over.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by PolishKnight
I can't resist the urge to observe you claim that you don't
require men to be a satellite for you but you didn't mind
taking advantage of opportunities to scarf free drinks
off of them or having them put on a dog and pony show
for the chance of a "second date".

A lot depended on just what kind of guy it was. For example, if the guy
turned out to be that self-absorbed braggard, I'd think to myself,
"Alright, asshole. Then you can pay for the meal and the drinks." And if
I sensed the guy lacked self-esteem and he was trying to use this date as a
way to prop himself up, then I would try not to damage his fragile esteem
by insisting I pay. If he was one of those easy-going fun loving guys, then
I knew he wouldn't be offended if I offered to pay for that date. Back then
it wasn't customary for women to pay for dates, so when I offered to do so,
it tended to be a pleasant surprise that we'd laugh about.

There was another uncustomary thing that I did for this one guy. He was
loads of fun. Anyway, his birthday was coming up and the question arose,
"What do you buy a guy who has everything?" <sigh> I wanted to do
something quite unique and out of the ordinary. The idea sprang to mind to
buy this guy a beautiful bouquet of flowers. Nobody buys men flowers...or,
at least, they didn't back then. I had them delivered to his home. Later,
I arrived to treat him out for dinner. Well...you should have seen the
reception he gave me. LOL...the man was besides himself for having received
these gorgeous flowers! In fact, he was moved to tears! No-one had ever
done such a nice thing for him. ;-)

Mark, has any woman ever bought you a beautiful bouquet of flowers?

In any case, I could usually "read" the men quite well. They all tended to
be rather quite different and unique. So, picking out that right response
towards any given man was quite important. If I found the man needed too
much coddling to prop up his self-esteem, I just found that way too
tiresome. And if he was arrogant and demanding, that put me right off, too.
He had to be somewhere in the middle...easy-going, fun loving, confident and
secure...a guy who didn't need mothering nor a slave, but a guy who really
was looking for that equal partner. It took me awhile, but I eventually
did find that right guy for me. ;-)

Heidi

[d***@bellsouth.net]

Post by PolishKnight
Hello Jill,
In all fairness, please, I think Denise is saying that in a _healthy_
marital relationship, the wife understands they don't have "equality"
and that the wife should respect the wageearner as the "boss".
Her mentioning that the husband is "paying" the wife to stay at home
through his support is critical since many feminists like to argue
that the women do "unpaid" work which isn't true, of course.

(Denise) Yes. If the husband is supporting the wife so she is free to
spend all her time at homemaking, he is in a certain sense her
employer. That doesn't mean he's a tyrant, that doesn't mean he always
gets his way, it just means that the ECONOMIC relationship is similar
to that between a boss and an employee.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill
So if both know this, and if almost everyone else knows this, then it
can only be social blindness or I hate to say it...sexual bigotry on
your part to maintain that wives have no power and husbands have all
of the power whether they are SAH wives or not.

I don't recall her saying the wives had no power. An employee does
have power in the sense that they provide a valuable service otherwise
all employees would be paid next to nothing.

(Denise) A Stay-at-home spouse may be said to have more "power" over
the work environment than employees at most jobs because the "boss"
isn't always around to supervise.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Jill
That is really funny to those of us who live in the real world,
Denise. Just watch TV. Whether it's a 1950's family show or a 2005
family show, it is almost always the wife who is portrayed as the true
"boss" of the house and family. The husband is often treated almost
as a paying guest in the home. THAT portrayal continues on for 50
years because it resonates with the viewers. If it didn't resonate,
viewers would soon loose interest and TV producers and programmers
understands what sells. If you doubt that example look at commercials
from the 1950's right up until today. Same thing.
IF (Big IF) there is a "boss" of the wife in the home, Denise, it is
the children. While teenagers want to run things in the home and
often rebel, they still don't have the clout of a parent, even an
ineffectual mother backed by an even more ineffectual father because
money is still the ultimate power and teenagers lack money.

(Denise) Yes. The husband is the employer in the sense that he's paying
the wife to do a job. But as I point out, the "boss" isn't there all
the time to monitor work performance when the wife is a fulltime
homemaker.

Hogwash. He is not paying her to do a job. She is supposed to be
doing the household and caregiving tasks in EXCHANGE for food and room
and board. Marriage is an EXCHANGE when it is properly conducted.
There is NO "boss and their is NO "employee."

Yes Jill, but couldn't the same be said for boss/employee relationships
too? Isn't that an exchange as well?
Denise is actually saying, and correct me if I'm wrong Denise, that
the man as boss is entitled to some kind of service in exchange for
his support. Today, many women argue that the man should pay
the bills and the wife decides what she wants to do and any chores
she does is "unpaid" and a "sacrifice". Her argument undermines
the position of alimony entitlements since an employee is compensated
immediately.

(Denise) I'm saying that there is a legitimate economic sense in which
the breadwinner is in a financial sense the employer while the
dependent spouse can be for those purposes regarded as an employee. I
wasn't making the same point as you, Polish Knight, but yes, the
breadwinner is perfectly right to ask the dependent spouse to meet
certain standards regarding work performance.

Post by PolishKnight

Post by Jill
However, it is important to look at who is really making the decisions
(big and small) on how to spend money, where to live, what car to buy,
how many children to have, where the kids will be schooled, etc. Most
often it is the wife who makes these final decisions and if a husband
disagrees...she'll see a lawyer and get her way anyway.

I beg to disagree.
I know we've had this discussion before, and it's not a pleasant one,
but men do have a choice. They can choose to assert themselves
THROUGHOUT a relationship and not just go along with their wife
and placating her in the hopes of her not making him walk the
plank just for kicks anyway.
I have made serious progress in adjusting people's attitudes,
especially
women's, by dumping women who desperated wanted a man to
support them but when they revealed selfish attitudes I told them
to adjust their attitude. When they didn't, I walked.
There are plenty of opportunities for men to do this. If the woman
wants a diamond, he doesn't have to rush out and buy her a big one
because she might cry or even worse, take a walk. If she demands
he take her out to expensive restaurants, he doesn't have to do so
just to placate her. American women are spoiled because American
men _spoil_ them!!! Let's accept some responsibility here.
A good, decent woman isn't going to decide to divorce a man and
have strife for herself and her children just because he has a set of
balls and says no to her sometimes. But if she is conditioned to
believe otherwise, I don't think even submissive men will be treated
decently.

Post by Jill
Now exactly who is the *real* boss using those parameters?

Whoever has balls or stupidity. The problem is that American
women often have a lot of both nowadays.

Post by Jill

Post by d***@bellsouth.net

Post by Jill
However, as has been so often noted on this NG, smaller children are
an even more poignant example of "bosses" without power. No infant or
toddler has ever fired their mother for being neglectful, incompetent,
or lazy. In a nutshell, the wife/mother IS the boss of the family and
the father is just the hapless guy who pays her and her offsprings'
bills.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Bob]

Post by d***@bellsouth.net
(Denise) Yes. The husband is the employer in the sense that he's paying
the wife to do a job. But as I point out, the "boss" isn't there all
the time to monitor work performance when the wife is a fulltime
homemaker.

He can't fire or reprimand her for failing to meet a high standard,
short of actual abuse (sometimes, not even then) mothers can't be
removed, and very few women would admit a husband has any right to
make performance demands anyway. To the extent that husbands exhibit
indifference regarding these subjects (as many women complain) it's
a perfect example of *rational apathy*: he will not spend time
monitoring because he has no enforcement capability.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by PolishKnight
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1648502&page=1
"An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force
to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not
only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article
for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among
mothers.
Census figures show 54 percent of mothers with a graduate or
professional degree no longer work full time. In 2003 and 2004 Hirshman
interviewed about 30 women whose wedding announcements had appeared in
The New York Times in 1996 and who had had children. Five of the women
were working full time, and 10 were working part time. The rest were not
working at all."

Well thank you Captain Obvious!

Regards...