Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 07:45 AM

Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 07:45 AM
Before I launch, I realize I need to stop watching Good Morning America.  

Today's offering was just beyond beyond.  

First, according to my calendar, Father's Day is this coming Sunday.   So where are the segments honoring fathers?   Today, there was a long segment on a recent contest sponsored by Good Housekeeping magazine to find the husband/father who did the most housework in the US and reward him.   The winner is a guy who works full time (and so does his wife), then he comes home and does all the housekeeping and cooking for his wife and 14 month old daughter.   He works 24/7, scrubbing, dusting, everything.   He proudly described his cleaning tips.   Then they gave him and a male soap actor a mock "contest" where the two competed in a timed window washing, rug vacuuming, and pancake flipping.   The soap actor exaggerated his incompetence, while the housecleaning superdad showed off his domestic prowess.  I thought I was going to throw up.   Superdad's pregnant wife was standing by holding their daughter, just beaming about what a hard worker he is.   Good Housekeeping gave him $22,000 of stuff including a plasma TV.   They also talked about the 2 runners up, one of whom works 14 hour days and still does everything else around the house for wife and kids.   This was presented as the ideal to which all men should aspire.   The point was made that these men feel their marriages are better because they work so hard around the house.  Wow, we really need to set the bar just a little higher for dad, don't you think?  

Flash forward through one commercial break to the next segment highlighting Linda Hirshman's book:   Get To Work - A Manifesto For Women.   This lady is the epitome of a condescending, elitist, radical feminazi bitch from hell.   I'm on my fourth cup of coffee so bear with me.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2067008&page=1

This is pure poison.   What she's saying is that women who are full time homemakers are not realizing their potential, that this job is not sufficient for a full adult life, that they're making themselves dependent.   She says SAHM's do what they do because they enjoy it - not because of any benefit to the children or family.   In other words, SAHM's are inferior to the likes of her because they can't possibly be fulfilling their intellectual potential.   Her arrogance is absolutely breathtaking.

Interestingly, the interviewer was a young woman who has 2 small children, and her husband is the stay at home parent.   Hirshman does not make the point that a man who is a SAHD is somehow stunting his intellectual growth or making himself dependent on his wife.   What a double standard !   When the reporter talked about her particular family's choice, Hirshman kept making the point that this wasn't about any one family's choice, it's a sociological fact that women become dependent and don't realize their full potential if they don't work full time outside the home.   Women need to be in the world of adults, she says.   (I suppose the companionship of other stay at home parents doesn't count, because they're just childish dependents who aren't true adults).

Then Hirshman said, and I'm not kidding, "Where are the fathers?  I'm always skeptical of any choice women make that men can't.   Where are the fathers spending time with the children?"    And she's saying this to a woman whose husband is a stay at home dad.   Unbelievable.

Now - juxtapose these two segments together for just a second and try to find some logic.    The ideal man, according to this reasoning, is someone who works full time outside the home, then spends all his time afterwards doing all the household work.   The kids go to daycare, and mom works full time, then she comes home to bask in her intellectual fulfillment while dad does the drudgery.   He gets a "better marriage" and a plasma TV.  

Where are the fathers in this model?   They sure don't have time to spend with their kids - with both parents working full time and dad doing all the housework besides.   In Hirshman's world, it's wrong for one parent to concentrate on the home front so both parents actually have some time to relax with the kids and each other.   She even goes so far as to say that women shouldn't have more than one child, because women tend to leave the workplace more often after the second child.   I think I hear China calling.

True to Dr. E's prediction, I was struck by a commercial last night.   Just in time for Father's Day.   Maybe some of you saw it.   I don't remember if it was for Craftsman, or TrueValue Hardware (obviously a poor commercial as I can't remember the product), but it jumped from father to father using tools, and singing a silly song about how they don't know what they're doing.   They messed everything up - total baffoons.   The last poor guy cut the power to his house while trying to repair something.  Great way to sell tools.

It's really sad that we've gone from Father Knows Best in this country, to Father Doesn't Know What The Hell He's Doing.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 13, 2006, 07:56 AM
OMG Christiane!  Nice analysis.  You are turning into an MRA before our very eyes!  Welcome and condolences.  You will see it just about everyplace you look and then when you point it out to others you will be labeled a misogynist.  Welcome to our world.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 13, 2006, 08:17 AM
Christianne rocks.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 13, 2006, 08:21 AM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Then Hirshman said, and I'm not kidding, "Where are the fathers?  I'm always skeptical of any choice women make that men can't.   Where are the fathers spending time with the children?"    And she's saying this to a woman whose husband is a stay at home dad.   Unbelievable.


This highlights nicely what I've been noting for a long time now:  SImply not supporting feminism isn't good enough.  Far, far too many women are allowed to get off the hook by simply declaring that "I'm not a feminist" yet at the same time do absolutely nothing when confronted head-on with feminist sexism, double-standards and bigotry.  Those women are allowed a pass and at the same time enjoy all the benefits of the institutional sexism that feminism has brough upon us.

I say no more.

In my book it's no longer acceptable to declare oneself as "not a feminist" - it's simply not good enough.  Unless you're an active MRA, and even better an anti-feminist (i.e., anti-sexist) then you're part of the problem.  Period.  

That female interviewer should have been all over Hirshman but instead she gave Hirshman a pass.  Bullshit.  I hope the interviewer's husband serves her cold dogshit for dinner and makes her sleep in the garage for a week.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 13, 2006, 09:10 AM
I have no problem with a chap who keeps his tent clean. Not that I am a paragon. I have a squire. But a chap should tend to his chores even after a hard days Knighting. None of this put your feet up stuff. He should immediately disrobe and get the triferrictetroxide out of his vestment, clean his armour, knocking out the grosser dents with the special hammer, clean his weapons, spend a little time with the whetstone to keep the edges sharp and ready (might be a night call out), washdown and feed the Steed, throw a haunch on the fire for later, peel a few veggies etc. Only then can he sit back with a bevvie. This, my daily routine, is definitly worth a plasma TV and 22 grand. Fat chance though.

But seriously folks, Each to his own. I know of a few houseproud squires and they do well. The social engineering aspect of feminism is a bane at the least. The denigration of both men and women who wish to make their own arrangement and chore-doings is fatuous, oppressive interference. The 'shaming', name-calling tactics - against both men and woman of goodwill going about their lawful occasions - needs to be whacked without mercy. All hail and a bevvie to the first person to take one of the TV harridans to task and eviscerate her/him on camera. Bugger diplomatic niceties.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 09:22 AM
Quote
That female interviewer should have been all over Hirshman but instead she gave Hirshman a pass.


Actually, she challenged her multiple times.   Sorry if I didn't make that clear, Mr. Bad.  The interviewer pointed out that there have been zillions of emails sent to GMA about Hirshman's book (apparently she was on before), most violently disagreeing with her.   She showed a couple of the emails on the air, and made the point at least twice that Hirshman's views are "controversial".  She also obviously took personal exception to what Hirshman was saying, citing friends of hers who were SAHM's, and mentioning her husband.  

I took a little heart in that.   So maybe not dogshit for dinner tonight....

But Hirshman countered everything the interviewer pointed out with a wave of her hand, saying individual experiences aren't relevant, and she very arrogantly brushed aside the emails as well.   Typical leftist radical - when reality is inconvenient,  just wave your hand and it will evaporate.  And her tone of voice was sickeningly calm and pleasant, while dripping venom.   I've seen that before too.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 13, 2006, 09:33 AM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Then Hirshman said, and I'm not kidding, "Where are the fathers?  I'm always skeptical of any choice women make that men can't.   Where are the fathers spending time with the children?"    And she's saying this to a woman whose husband is a stay at home dad.   Unbelievable.


She makes a damn good point.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again
Post by: scarbo on Jun 13, 2006, 11:24 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"
Then Hirshman said, and I'm not kidding, "Where are the fathers?  I'm always skeptical of any choice women make that men can't.   Where are the fathers spending time with the children?"    And she's saying this to a woman whose husband is a stay at home dad.   Unbelievable.


She makes a damn good point.


So I guess I'll trot out MY anecdote to answer this question.

I was having dinner one night with two good lady friends of mine. One of them is very sensitive about feminism/equality/gender issues. She would be a good one to come here to attempt to argue that women are oppressed, because she believes it. So, naturally, having since read Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" myself, I thought I'd try out a few of the ideas on her.

We got into quite heated a discussion about a lot of things. But one thing I will remember is this: when I asked her if she would ever consider working and supporting a stay-at-home dad, she said "Never." But she was perfectly OK with the notion of HER staying home and her husband working to support. Since that dinner, she did indeed go on to meet a guy and marry. And guess what? She quit the nearly six-figure job she held at the company I work at ("too stressful", she said), her husband has decided to go to law school AT NIGHT, and they now have a child. Guess who gets to stay home with the daughter? And guess who also works PART TIME at a NON-PROFIT org which supports her hobby?

There you have it, and it's of course no surprise.

TB, show me the number of families where the spouses have both agreed for the wife to work and the husband to stay home with the kids. It's not a large number, I'm willing to bet. And I think I know why.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 12:13 PM
Quote
I have no problem with a chap who keeps his tent clean


Me either, SP.   And I agree with you about the name calling.   Oppressive interference indeed.   I'd love to see Hannity get hold of Hirshman, but I would bet money she lacks the guts.

It really is a shame there aren't more stay at home dads.   I hope that's changing.   Some of it may have to do with the fact that men tend to marry younger women, and the men are further along in their careers when children come along.   But I've never analyzed the trends or statistics, so I don't know.   That was the only part of the interview, tb, where Hirshman said anything I could agree with.   And the fact is, men can make that choice, but it's difficult.   I hope we can get to a point where that choice is equally available.   I think we've a long way to go.

But Hirshman believes both parents should work, and women should have only one child, so all adults stay in the workforce and women can thus achieve intellectual fulfillment.   Who is she to pontificate about what constitutes intellectual fulfillment?  In her view, that's the Holy Grail of existence.   Her argument is a SAHM  (but not a SAHD)  is a victim of dependency and stunted intellectual growth.   That is a crock.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 12:38 PM
Quote
In my book it's no longer acceptable to declare oneself as "not a feminist" - it's simply not good enough. Unless you're an active MRA, and even better an anti-feminist (i.e., anti-sexist) then you're part of the problem. Period.


I've thought about this, Mr. Bad, and I would like to gently disagree with you.   I think the road toward truly seeing injustice is sometimes just that:  a road.   Someone who is not as far along the road as you is not necessarily part of the problem.   Declaring oneself "not a feminist"
might better be viewed as a necessary first step on that road.

If your goal is to garner wider support for your cause, I don't think it's productive to dismiss those whose interest has been piqued, who are beginning to think about issues they didn't notice before.  On the contrary, every person who looks at your issues and declares her/himself "not a feminist" where no such declaration existed before, represents a potential vote in your favor.   And you need more votes.  If the MRM is going to effect real legislative change, you need more votes.   Your enemy is formidable.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 13, 2006, 01:01 PM
Quote from: "scarbo"
We got into quite heated a discussion about a lot of things. But one thing I will remember is this: when I asked her if she would ever consider working and supporting a stay-at-home dad, she said "Never." But she was perfectly OK with the notion of HER staying home and her husband working to support. Since that dinner, she did indeed go on to meet a guy and marry. And guess what? She quit the nearly six-figure job she held at the company I work at ("too stressful", she said), her husband has decided to go to law school AT NIGHT, and they now have a child. Guess who gets to stay home with the daughter? And guess who also works PART TIME at a NON-PROFIT org which supports her hobby?


The core of it is that most men inherently know that they are most likely not going to get anything in life if they don't get it themselves.  Women have the very real possibility of getting it out of men - sometimes to the tune of millions, without any work (see Heather & Paul) - or getting money by working for it.  Or usually a combination of the two.

But given that situation, and the fact that most women look to marry up, a man knows that he would be destroying his life if he let himself be supported by a woman.  Aside from the shame from society, he wouldn't have the perks of a divorce court on his side if something went wrong, and he wouldn't have the major perk of being able to easily get some other woman to support him (as women can do much more easily with men).

Work can definitely be a source of satisfaction if you are in particular occupations, mostly professions, but even then I notice that almost everyone who wins the lotto quits work. And lots and lots of people are in jobs they hate.

On the bad side, what bothers me is the utter lack of empathy that many or most women have about that - they don't care to understand it, the guy pays and that's that. On the bright side, being forced into that situation acts as a source of motivation to improve yourself and finally land in a place where you really do derive satisfaction out of a job, and where you really start earning well as you get older.

That forces men who may not have liked work when they were younger to go to that effort - as opposed to just taking the easy way out by having someone pay for you - and I would certainly not want to be in the position of an older woman who has no inkling of the real world and has to thus be supported by others via court orders, or using victimhood, or whatever. Dependency would really be a drag.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 02:41 PM
Not to be off topic, but "Here we go again"

Galt, I really do respect your opinions.   Your experience is way different from mine.   That's what makes the world interesting.

Think about this though:   Doesn't it seem reasonable that the SAHM population represents an untapped pool of support for the MRM?   Whether or not you agree that parents of either gender, especially women, should pull themselves out of the workforce to concentrate on hearth and home, so to speak, doesn't it seem logical that these women, and they are almost exclusively women, would support your cause?

Let me put it another way.   Whatever your personal feelings about SAHM's, wouldn't it be tactically advantageous to garner their sympathy, and votes, for the MRM?   For the MRM to truly become mainstream, you'll need much more support from women, and where do you think that's likely to come from?   Conservative intellectuals?   Well, yes, but how many of them are there?  

There are millions of us out here, Galt.   Millions of women who love their men, take pride in their home, manage the family money, work hard and have stayed married.   Show me a SAHM who is a radical feminist, and I'll show you a creature who doesn't exist.    And I'm not talking about Paul and Heather.   I'm talking about real flesh and blood, everyday people.   Your issues are just not on their radar.   Injustice to men is simply not in their experience.    Don't write them off - LOBBY THEM.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 13, 2006, 02:47 PM
Excellent post Galt - you sum it up very nicely.  Necessity is not only the mother of invention, it's the father of success. If you have to work, you're more likely to eventually find a job/career/profession you like doing and therefore you get good at it.    When everything is easy, you get complacent and less "sharp".  

Take a trip to one of the emerging 2nd world countries and you'll see what I mean.  People are hungry there - willing to work, learn, improve themselves.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 13, 2006, 02:52 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Not to be off topic, but "Here we go again"

Galt, I really do respect your opinions.   Your experience is way different from mine.   That's what makes the world interesting.

Think about this though:   Doesn't it seem reasonable that the SAHM population represents an untapped pool of support for the MRM?   Whether or not you agree that parents of either gender, especially women, should pull themselves out of the workforce to concentrate on hearth and home, so to speak, doesn't it seem logical that these women, and they are almost exclusively women, would support your cause?

Let me put it another way.   Whatever your personal feelings about SAHM's, wouldn't it be tactically advantageous to garner their sympathy, and votes, for the MRM?   For the MRM to truly become mainstream, you'll need much more support from women, and where do you think that's likely to come from?   Conservative intellectuals?   Well, yes, but how many of them are there?  

There are millions of us out here, Galt.   Millions of women who love their men, take pride in their home, manage the family money, work hard and have stayed married.   Show me a SAHM who is a radical feminist, and I'll show you a creature who doesn't exist.    And I'm not talking about Paul and Heather.   I'm talking about real flesh and blood, everyday people.   Your issues are just not on their radar.   Injustice to men is simply not in their experience.    Don't write them off - LOBBY THEM.


Here are some thoughts on that:

1. There are definitely some stay-at-home feminists.  I've come across them.  Aside from my own anecdotal experiences, there were women on the old Ms. Boards who simultaneously had radical views AND were living off a husband. The poster "Smithie" comes to mind, as an example, if anyone here used to read those boards (the husband was apparently a Microsoft guy).

2. The assumption that the stay-at-home woman is "freeing up the back" of the man earning is not true across the board. There are men living in the basement (there was a recent article about that) and still "providing", but a conflict situation at home is not helping him any. I know men who work overtime so that they don't have to go home, and maybe you know some.

3. It's my personal opinion that the issue of a woman living off a man, when she isn't taking care of small children, IS an issue for men.  A lot of people, maybe most people even here, disagree with me on that. But if a divorce comes about, he's dead meat if the woman hasn't worked. Aside from the moral issue of why exactly you have to pay a woman to be with you. Things are not like they were 100 years ago on a farm, in which the man worked his butt off and the woman had to also work her butt off in the home.

I realize that a lot of my opinion is based on my personal experiences.  Maybe I've seen more bad housewives than other people here or than exist on average. I have some anger after seeing friends completely get used by those types.  I still think that men are laboring under an illusion that may not be true or real when they go into a situation like that, and not seeing reality could also be costly later on, even in the sense of your own self-esteem and peace of mind, not just with regard to money.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 13, 2006, 03:29 PM
I do know a couple where the man always worked and the wife had never worked outside of the home.  They are now in their 60s (friends of my parents), and they seem to still get along quite well - they have been married since they were both 18 or 20 years old.  That's probably what the people who think differently than me are striving for, and it does exist.

Just to take a different point of view.  LOL

At that point, I can only think that it's a situation I wouldn't personally want - the wife seems to be a bit of a dummy - but they both seem happy and who can knock that.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 03:48 PM
Again, I totally respect your views, and your experience is as valid as mine.

But I resent the blanket assertion that a SAHM is "living off a man".   Divorce happens.   People, of both genders, act like shits sometimes.   But I am no more "living off my man" than he is living off me.   It's a partnership.  And I respect him as head of our household.   I'm not an evangelical Christian, and I'm not alone in respecting my husband as head of our household.   There are millions of us out here, Galt.  Call it evolutionary, whatever, but we're here.

The vast majority of "traditional" households work because the marriage partners are just that:  partners.   My point is, and I see and respect yours, is the MRM is perhaps missing out on a source of support from SAHM's.   Whatever your personal views, this is a place you will likely find female support.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 13, 2006, 03:54 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
But I resent the blanket assertion that a SAHM is "living off a man".   Divorce happens.   People, of both genders, act like shits sometimes.   But I am no more "living off my man" than he is living off me.   It's a partnership.  And I respect him as head of our household.   I'm not an evangelical Christian, and I'm not alone in respecting my husband as head of our household.   There are millions of us out here, Galt.  Call it evolutionary, whatever, but we're here.


I'm not attacking you personally.  I don't know what your arrangements are.  Everything may be fine with you and your husband.

Please read the preceding paragraph again.

There ARE, however, situations with housewives that are not optimal for men.  There ARE women living off men, which may be OK, until something happens (like the husband loses his job, with no good prospects for the future) and he gets to see that love isn't exactly absolute love after all.

So please join in with me in condemning THOSE housewives.  LOL  I'm not attacking you personally.

For some reason, this is really deja-vu central.  But you're not Bisquit Queen (hmmm ... and I'll ignore the comma Galt, like she writes, LOL).

My views are REALLY not directed against you personally.

I think I'll go back down into an apathetic deep freeze for a while.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 13, 2006, 04:02 PM
I actually think that you two agree to some level.  Stay at home moms, implies a child is around.  Galt seems to agree that if she is at home TAKING CARE OF THE HOME AND CHILD, that isn't a bad thing.  His issue, as I see it and agree, is the woman that stays at home where there are no children around... in other words, no reason for her NOT to work and contribute to the household...

Yes?

TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 13, 2006, 04:03 PM
Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
I actually think that you two agree to some level.  Stay at home moms, implies a child is around.  Galt seems to agree that if she is at home TAKING CARE OF THE HOME AND CHILD, that isn't a bad thing.  His issue, as I see it and agree, is the woman that stays at home where there are no children around... in other words, no reason for her NOT to work and contribute to the household...

Yes?

TMOTS


That's pretty much it.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 13, 2006, 04:05 PM
Quote
But I resent the blanket assertion that a SAHM is "living off a man". Divorce happens. People, of both genders, act like shits sometimes. But I am no more "living off my man" than he is living off me. It's a partnership. And I respect him as head of our household. I'm not an evangelical Christian, and I'm not alone in respecting my husband as head of our household. There are millions of us out here, Galt. Call it evolutionary, whatever, but we're here.


I'm not even Christian at all (I'm not anything), and I feel the same.
I don't know what to call it either - just kind of natural.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 04:24 PM
Yo Galt - You've been in East Germany too long.   The Gestapo aren't coming for you.   Get a grip, my friend.

You're the second person to mention Biscuit Queen though.   I take it she was another stay at home, intellectually unfulfilled sap serving her master.

And I don't need to reread you.   I know you're not attacking me personally.   At least I don't think so directly...    :)

Please don't go into deep freeze.   There's no conspiracy here.   We're just OK people with a different arrangement than yours and it works for us.   I will miss you if you go away...
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 13, 2006, 04:27 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Yo Galt - You've been in East Germany too long.   The Gestapo aren't coming for you.   Get a grip, my friend.

You're the second person to mention Biscuit Queen though.   I take it she was another stay at home, intellectually unfulfilled sap serving her master.

And I don't need to reread you.   I know you're not attacking me personally.   At least I don't think so directly...    :)

Please don't go into deep freeze.   There's no conspiracy here.   We're just OK people with a different arrangement than yours and it works for us.   I will miss you if you go away...


Hmm.  Odd, sudden change of tone.

But anyway, it was the "Stasi" in East Germany.  The Gestapo was pre-war and during the war.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 13, 2006, 04:37 PM
Unless you produce materially enough to maintain your lifestyle you are, logically, living off the partner who does.

Now if it's an arrangement you agreed upon, that's fine. (Although it's extremely suspicious that *so* many women get to stay at home and so many men don't. Particularly when you read statistics that state that 40% of men would scale back or eliminate their work and stay at home if they could.)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 04:41 PM
Whatever.   They're not looking over your shoulder , metaphorically.   Jeese.   And no change of tone - my God, we can disagree, and I have no doubt we will continue to.    No doubt.   We see things very differently.   That's not going to change.   I try to understand your point of view, but your experience is so different from mine it's hard sometimes.   But I respect your opinions.   I'll just leave it at that.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 13, 2006, 04:45 PM
Christiane - It's an interesting idea to try to market sahm's to be involved in working towards fairness around men's issues.  Do you have any suggestions on how to go about that?  It's something I have wondered about for some time and think that the only possible way to convince them to join with us is to point out the damages that are being done to their sons.  That will likely get them motivated but even that is a very tough task.  How does one accomplish that?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 05:05 PM
Interesting idea?

That's not the only way, Dr. E.   Just point out unfairness.   In general.   Why do you think the only way they will see unfairness is as it relates to their sons?   I don't see that at all.   What about their husbands?  

I'm not sure why I'm here.  What do you mean by that?  Our sons mean something to us but our husbands don't?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 13, 2006, 05:10 PM
The question was "Do you have any suggestions on how to go about that?" I'm curious to hear what you have to say about that.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 13, 2006, 05:10 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
my God, we can disagree, and I have no doubt we will continue to.    No doubt.   We see things very differently.   That's not going to change.


That's not necessarily bad.  I think I pretty much agree with your views, except on this topic.  You certainly don't sound like a feminist.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 13, 2006, 06:06 PM
There are some modestly happy, contented marriages. In most western countries the divorce rate is approaching 50%, true, but that also means 50% are OK.  I agree that some of these may well be MRM material. The 'traditional arrangement' people. The majority of the population, men and women are brain-dead when it comes to recognising the problems and the causes though and need to be shown what is happening to our laws, social systems, schools, universities, literature, moral probity etc.

A major factor regarding the traditional 'man work, woman keeps home', is that as the feminists make such a fuss about how stultifying it is for women, the men start to realise what a bum deal it is for men. So I agree with Christiane that there is a recruitment pool out there waiting to be tapped. There are up and down sides. When ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise for some people.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 06:13 PM
I will have to think on that.   How to go about it I mean.  I will think on it Dr. E.   It's a worthy question.

I came here in response to the injustice of the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case.

There must be a way to mainstream your cause more effectively than you're doing.   I mean, I don't see any press about men's rights issues.   Zippo.  Nada.  

So - some change in marketing is in order.  

And don't denigrate me for being new.   I AM new to this issue, and I'm telling you, I'm mainstream and your issues are not being heard.   I stumbled on you.   Somehow, you need to get people to see you up front and center.  In a way they can relate to.  In a way that affirms your cause as pro-family, normal, in line with fairness, justice.

And you're not going to progess through attack ads against stay at home moms....  

My husband just looked over my shoulder and said with a laugh, "you've got dishes to do, woman"...  Gotta go..  lol....

Seriously, we're your likely allies.   You're biting the wrong dog, forgive the analogy.   And I do have dishes to do...    :wink:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 07:04 PM
Quote
the men start to realise what a bum deal it is for men.


No, SP, stay at home mom's are not a bum deal for men.  

And stay at home mom's are not a bum deal for women.

And stay at home dad's are not a bum deal for men.

And stay at home dad's are not a bum deal for women.

These are called lifestyle choices.   Not bum deals.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 13, 2006, 07:27 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
The question was "Do you have any suggestions on how to go about that?" I'm curious to hear what you have to say about that.


If I may butt in I reckon that compiling and exposing feminism's ongoing depiction of SAHMs as little more than "drones" would be a good starting point. It's been going on since the seventies at least so there's plenty of ammunition. Very few people like their intelligence and "usefullness" being demeaned and feminism has been doing this with SAHMs for ever. The real difficulty is in getting the message out there to the target audience.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 07:39 PM
As always, I love you dearly.   Yes, target an insulted audience with half a brain, and you might get results.   How to go about that, I'm not an expert, but it can't be rocket science.  

The feminist movement has been ridiculing and insulting the SAHM segment of the female population for 20 years.   We're so done with them.   Woo us.   We love men.    We will come to you....       8)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 13, 2006, 07:51 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
As always, I love you dearly.   Yes, target an insulted audience with half a brain, and you might get results.   How to go about that, I'm not an expert, but it can't be rocket science.  

The feminist movement has been ridiculing and insulting the SAHM segment of the female population for 20 years.   We're so done with them.   Woo us.   We love men.    We will come to you....       8)


Of course you love men. Without them you would be working.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 13, 2006, 07:54 PM
Thanks Christiane, please do think on it.  Your perspective could be very helpful.  We must find allies and lots of them because we are few in number and up against a mammoth foe.


Quote from: "Christiane"
Quote
the men start to realise what a bum deal it is for men.


No, SP, stay at home mom's are not a bum deal for men.  

And stay at home mom's are not a bum deal for women.

And stay at home dad's are not a bum deal for men.

And stay at home dad's are not a bum deal for women.

These are called lifestyle choices.   Not bum deals.



Yes, and who has the choices?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 07:58 PM
We are working.   Go fuck yourself, tb.

I'll proudly take the warning, Dr. E.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Crusoe on Jun 13, 2006, 08:08 PM
Quote
My point is, and I see and respect yours, is the MRM is perhaps missing out on a source of support from SAHM's. Whatever your personal views, this is a place you will likely find female support.


How would you sell the MRM to SAHM's?
What would you list as the advantages of supporting men's rights?




Crusoe
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 13, 2006, 08:15 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
We are working.   Go fuck yourself, tb.

I'll proudly take the warning, Dr. E.


Alright *cracks knuckles*.

At the turn of the century the average "home-maker"(read: homesteader) worked about 60-80 hours a week.

She did the following:

Raised 4-6 children, canned produce from her garden, raised livestock, sewed and laundered clothing(by hand), cleaned with lye and water, often hauled 40kg of water a day, etc. etc. Often in addition to bringing in money via a cottage industry.

She produced approximately 1/2 of what her family consumed.

Over the last century the bread winner has taken over the traditional tasks of the homesteader(now a home-maker). He(or, rarely, she) purchases clothing(previously made by the lady of the house), purchases fruits and vegetables (formerly harvested by the lady of the house), purchases meats (formerly raised, and often slaughtered, by the lady of the house) and also has basically taken over the tasks of cleaning by purchasing automated cleaning devices (such as vacuumes, washer and dryer, dishwasher, etc.)

Let me repeat this, Sue--er. BQ... wait-- Christine...

THE BREADWINNER DOES 90% OF THE WORK OF SUSTAINING A FAMILY IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

Men are being killed and maimed... they are loosing 6-8 years off their lives through overwork and stress BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING 90% OF SUSTAINING A FAMILY IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

(Which, incidentally, is the only era in which men have ever done so.)

You can swear at me as much as you want. That doesn't change the fact that MEN DO 90% OF THE WORK OF SUSTAINING A FAMILY IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

And that it's killing them. Not just directly, but indirectly since they don't have the free time to address the social issues that concern them. They don't have the free time to champion causes  that women do like... er... feminism(home-maker's little pet project in the 1960-70s.)

I'd like to see women get out of the buggy and haul it along side their man, and THEN say "I love men!"

If you really did, you wouldn't be advocating a lifestyle that kills them. (General you.)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 13, 2006, 08:19 PM
Quote from: "Crusoe"

How would you sell the MRM to SAHM's?
What would you list as the advantages of supporting men's rights?
Crusoe


How about these?

Fairness
Justice
Human Decency
Gratitude
Love
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 08:36 PM
It's a good question Crusoe - I'm not a media expert.   Maybe ground will be made one heart and one mind at a time.   There's sure been more talk about these issues around here due to the Duke Lacrosse case.  I don't know the best way to capitalize on that, but maybe that will happen on its own.  

I'm sure this has been discussed, but increasing media coverage of your issues will help.   Would commercials be in order?   I don't know, and I'm not on that committee.   We've certainly got liberal commercials out the wazoo, vis a vis the "Ad Council" et al, why not for Men's Rights?   Commercials educating the public about the real statistics might be helpful.   There is a serious lack of awareness out there, in mainstream America, about the justice of your cause.  

I would be willing to donate to that media effort.   That's just one thought.   I'm sure the people in charge have many other thoughts.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 13, 2006, 08:56 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
We are working.   Go fuck yourself, tb.

I'll proudly take the warning, Dr. E.


As you wish.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 13, 2006, 08:58 PM
:lol:    :lol:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Crusoe on Jun 13, 2006, 10:29 PM
Quote
Crusoe wrote:

How would you sell the MRM to SAHM's?
What would you list as the advantages of supporting men's rights?
Crusoe


How about these?

Fairness
Justice
Human Decency
Gratitude
Love






Pardon me for being cynical, but I haven't noticed a great deal of concern from the top of the food chain of Feminist privilege (SAHM's) over fairness or justice when faced with loss of those privileges.

Maybe I should have phrased:

What specific improvements do you believe the MRM would bring to SAHM's lives?




Crusoe
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 01:53 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Yes, and who has the choices?


Here's a specific situation that bothers me:

Let's say that John and Mary are both engineers at General Motors. Mary becomes infatuated with John after his handling of the big cable debacle. John can't seem to look away when Mary wears short skirts.

So they eventually get married.

Mary unilaterally quits, however, 3 months after the marriage, after her boss yells at her. She unilaterally decides to "sacrifice herself" to be a good wife to John.

John isn't at all pleased with that. Mary tells him that he'll get over it.

And then life goes on. Nothing is going to happen. John's friends just shrug their shoulders if he lets on over a beer that it pisses him off. "That's how women are, dude, get over it," says his brother. Some of the women around him tell John that he should be stepping up to the plate, he should be a real man and quit whining; they start shaming him. "What are you, a pimp who wants to live off your wife," they ask? So John just gets used to his role.

Now picture it the other way around:

If John just unilaterally up and quit his job, there would be hell to pay. Mary's mother would scream, "HE DID WHAT?" on the phone as Mary complains. Everyone would hammer him - and rightfully so - because that's something you just don't do to people.  That's not love, that's milking the marriage for all you can.

I'll spare you my anecdotes, but maybe you, the gentle reader, have also seen this happen occasionally in life.  Maybe that's one situation all of us here, including Christiane, can condemn.  But why are women who do this not subject to any societal penalty AND why are they actually REWARDED for that type of behavior if the marriage becomes a family-court issue?  Really strange in my book.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 02:02 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Raised 4-6 children, canned produce from her garden, raised livestock, sewed and laundered clothing(by hand), cleaned with lye and water, often hauled 40kg of water a day, etc. etc. Often in addition to bringing in money via a cottage industry.

She produced approximately 1/2 of what her family consumed.

Over the last century the bread winner has taken over the traditional tasks of the homesteader(now a home-maker). He(or, rarely, she) purchases clothing(previously made by the lady of the house), purchases fruits and vegetables (formerly harvested by the lady of the house), purchases meats (formerly raised, and often slaughtered, by the lady of the house) and also has basically taken over the tasks of cleaning by purchasing automated cleaning devices (such as vacuumes, washer and dryer, dishwasher, etc.)


Good points as usual, Typhonblue.

200 years ago being a homemaker was a back-breaking, full-time job for a lot of people, especially the rural population.

But as society has changed, men are still expected, and brainwashed into, taking on their full traditional responsibilities although this is no longer offset quid pro quo. The propensity on the part of women to "marry up" has remained, but I'm not sure anymore exactly WHAT some of them are offering in return.

What did Heather Mills provide in return for the very high lifestyle that Paul provided for her?  Besides sex?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: neonsamurai on Jun 14, 2006, 03:05 AM
I think you'd be swimming against the tide trying to convince SAHM's that the MRM is worthy of their time and effort. In the UK they are bombarded with daytime TV which is aimed solely at them and magazines like Ok! Now! Hello! Top Sante etc.

The majority of this media entertainment is just re-enforcing how hard it is to be a SAHM (just ask Oprah) and justifying their existence. Any program that tried to tell them how easy they have it, or that their husbands are working themselves to death or that they need to give more TLC to their significant others wouldn't be liked. Our media thrive on the victimhood of women because that's what gets the viewers to watch.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 03:32 AM
Quote from: "neonsamurai"
The majority of this media entertainment is just re-enforcing how hard it is to be a SAHM (just ask Oprah) and justifying their existence.


Oprah knows which side her bread is buttered on.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 14, 2006, 03:55 AM
Good discussion folks.

Christiane, I hear you re. the need to finesse the message so that it's acceptable to the target audience, so I agree that being too harsh vis-a-vis 'if you're not an anti-feminist you're the enemy' isn't realistic or productive at the moment.  However, for me it's correct and appropriate, so I will continue to hold to that credo personally, in private, and here, among allies.  To the public the message will be softened.

As for SAHMs being natural allies of the MRM?  Sure - makes sense to me.  IMO love for husbands is one motivation, love for sons (their flesh and blood) is more strong, and maintaining the lifestyle they are accustomed to is the strongest.  Being realistic and not intentionally disparaging, I believe that the priority ranking for women is self-preservation first, then offspring, followed by spouse.  You almost never see women sacrificing themselves for others the way men do; men will literally sacrifice their lives for others.  In my experience women won't, they're very much about self-preservation first.  Thus, I believe that when recruiting SAHMs to the MRM we need to highlight what's in it for them, i.e., self-preservation, which I think is a no-brainer.  As you and others have noted, feminists have trashed SAHMs for decades, so it seems to me that is would be easy to prove to reasonable, rational people that feminists would like to see the SAHM lifestyle eliminated.  In other words, feminists want to force women who are SAHMs to give up their preferred, chosen lifestyle in order to suit the feminist's totalitarian idea of women's role in society.  To me that sounds like something out of the Stalinist Soviet Union or communist China and is most definitely anti-choice for women.  

Folks, self-preservation for the SAHM lifestyle is the key to their hearts.   Show them that the feminists are a direct threat to that and we're halfway there.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 04:08 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"
As always, I love you dearly.   Yes, target an insulted audience with half a brain, and you might get results.   How to go about that, I'm not an expert, but it can't be rocket science.  

The feminist movement has been ridiculing and insulting the SAHM segment of the female population for 20 years.   We're so done with them.   Woo us.   We love men.    We will come to you....       8)


Of course you love men. Without them you would be working.




Must resist responding.....must resist responding....must resist responding.....


Oh, fuck it.  

Real nice, Typhon. Real  nice.  Just lovely.  We can always count on you, can't we.  By "we", I mean the BOARD MEMBERS, not women.  And if you don't understand for what we can alway count on from you, there really isn't any hope for you is there?

EDITED because she's just not worth it.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 04:13 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Raised 4-6 children, canned produce from her garden, raised livestock, sewed and laundered clothing(by hand), cleaned with lye and water, often hauled 40kg of water a day, etc. etc. Often in addition to bringing in money via a cottage industry.

She produced approximately 1/2 of what her family consumed.

Over the last century the bread winner has taken over the traditional tasks of the homesteader(now a home-maker). He(or, rarely, she) purchases clothing(previously made by the lady of the house), purchases fruits and vegetables (formerly harvested by the lady of the house), purchases meats (formerly raised, and often slaughtered, by the lady of the house) and also has basically taken over the tasks of cleaning by purchasing automated cleaning devices (such as vacuumes, washer and dryer, dishwasher, etc.)


Good points as usual, Typhonblue.

200 years ago being a homemaker was a back-breaking, full-time job for a lot of people, especially the rural population.

But as society has changed, men are still expected, and brainwashed into, taking on their full traditional responsibilities although this is no longer offset quid pro quo. The propensity on the part of women to "marry up" has remained, but I'm not sure anymore exactly WHAT some of them are offering in return.

What did Heather Mills provide in return for the very high lifestyle that Paul provided for her?  Besides sex?


And here we go - the same oh-so-predictable tag team. Galt and Typhon.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 04:16 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
And here we go - the same oh-so-predictable tag team. Galt and Typhon.


You realize, probably, that you're gossiping about the messengers instead of the message.

Any thoughts on the content itself?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 04:19 AM
Quote from: "Christiane"
We are working.   Go fuck yourself, tb.

I'll proudly take the warning, Dr. E.


:jump:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: neonsamurai on Jun 14, 2006, 04:22 AM
Quote
And here we go - the same oh-so-predictable tag team. Galt and Typhon.


If they were a proper tag team in the WWF then I guess it'd be 'Gorgeous Galt' and 'Hurricane Blue. AKA Lady Typhoon'.

Let the smackdown commence!
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 04:23 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "contrarymary"
And here we go - the same oh-so-predictable tag team. Galt and Typhon.


You realize, probably, that you're gossiping about the messengers instead of the message.

Any thoughts on the content itself?


Gossip?  Hardly.  As predictable as rain in Yorkshire in April.

No, I have no comment.  NONE.  I have no interest in having my thoughts picked apart by aasvogels who circle these threads in order to put down those of whom they are obviously jealous.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 04:27 AM
Quote from: "neonsamurai"
Quote
And here we go - the same oh-so-predictable tag team. Galt and Typhon.


If they were a proper tag team in the WWF then I guess it'd be 'Gorgeous Galt' and 'Hurricane Blue. AKA Lady Typhoon'.

Let the smackdown commence!


:)

Quote
Gossip? Hardly. As predictable as rain in Yorkshire in April.

No, I have no comment. NONE. I have no interest in having my thoughts picked apart by aasvogels who circle these threads in order to put down those of whom they are obviously jealous.


:(
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 04:30 AM
:)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 04:34 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
... picked apart by aasvogels ...


I think the better word for that is "Aasgeier".
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 07:46 AM
Quote from: "neonsamurai"
Quote
And here we go - the same oh-so-predictable tag team. Galt and Typhon.


If they were a proper tag team in the WWF then I guess it'd be 'Gorgeous Galt' and 'Hurricane Blue. AKA Lady Typhoon'.

Let the smackdown commence!


Oh, I'd like to smack down someone, all right, but I think I have two warnings as it is.

But don't for a moment think I can't do it.  This 5'1" , 50 year old grandmom packs a mean whollop.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 07:52 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"
As always, I love you dearly.   Yes, target an insulted audience with half a brain, and you might get results.   How to go about that, I'm not an expert, but it can't be rocket science.  

The feminist movement has been ridiculing and insulting the SAHM segment of the female population for 20 years.   We're so done with them.   Woo us.   We love men.    We will come to you....       8)


Of course you love men. Without them you would be working.




Must resist responding.....must resist responding....must resist responding.....


Oh, fuck it.  

Real nice, Typhon. Real  nice.  Just lovely.  We can always count on you, can't we.  By "we", I mean the BOARD MEMBERS, not women.  And if you don't understand for what we can alway count on from you, there really isn't any hope for you is there?


I share in your disappointment.

I'm disappointed but sadly not surprised. This is just the latest in an ongoing trend I've seen here at SYG -- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.

Dare I say it, but recognizing who your allies are does not seem to be the MRM's strong point.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 07:57 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
-- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.


Typhonblue is a woman. And you're apparently joining in with discrediting her statement.

While you simultaneously say that's bad.

Now you're really confusing me.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 08:01 AM
Well, I guess I'm not THAT confused.

What you probably mean is that people are saying something that you, for your own personal reasons, don't want them to say. And appealing to "discrediting women" is usually a no-brainer as a tactic.

I feel a real rush of chivalry to shut my mouth now after you have pointed out that women are, once again, being victimized.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:04 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "Niall"
-- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.


Typhonblue is a woman.


Yeah, I just knew someone was going to play that card.  :roll:

For the record, I thought about including a "with the exception of tb" disclaimer as part of my post, but decided it wasn't necessary since I've never actually seen her give critcial advice to any MRA here. Not saying she hasn't done it, just that I haven't seen it. And anyway she's clearly an exception to the rule about how women who offer critical suggestions around here get treated, probably because of her hardline stance, I would imagine.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:09 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
I feel a real rush of chivalry to shut my mouth now after you have pointed out that women are, once again, being victimized.


Hey, here's a novel idea...

Why don't you try actually reading what people write to try understand what they're saying, rather than extrapolating information through your own filtered lens of preconceptions?  :roll:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 08:09 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
Yeah, I just knew someone was going to play that card.  :roll:


It's the battle of the victims!

We don't want to talk about content or truth or insight anymore, we want to put in our ringers for biggest victim.

I suppose that I'll give up right now, though, because it appears you've had a lot more practice in the "presenting victims" department.  I bow to your superior skills, and will probably only be spending my time talking about content in the future.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 08:10 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
Hey, here's a novel idea...

Why don't you try actually reading what people write to try understand what they're saying, rather than extrapolating information through your own filtered lens of preconceptions?  :roll:


OK.

I think that someone really hit home with you here for some reason.

You really don't like what I said, or what Typhonblue said, do you.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 08:13 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "Niall"
-- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.


Typhonblue is a woman.


Yeah, I just knew someone was going to play that card.  :roll:

For the record, I thought about including a "with the exception of tb" disclaimer as part of my post, but decided it wasn't necessary since I've never actually seen her give critcial advice to any MRA here. Not saying she hasn't done it, just that I haven't seen it. And anyway she's clearly an exception to the rule about how women who offer critical suggestions around here get treated, probably because of her hardline stance, I would imagine.


I don't think the issue was one of not taking someones advice.  Last I heard Christiane was going to ponder the strategy idea and follow up later.  The issue to me seemed more in the volatile nature of the SAHM idea.  That issue, more than many others, seems to polarize people and ignite strong emotions.  When normally easy going posters start resorting to name calling you know that something is up.  

Let's please try to stick with the ideas here and avoid the name calling and personal attacks.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:16 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
I don't think the issue was one of not taking someones advice.  Last I heard Christiane was going to ponder the strategy idea and follow up later.  The issue to me seemed more in the volatile nature of the SAHM idea.


Maybe I'm reading the posts differently than you, Dr. E. But to me, the "volatile nature" of the SAHM idea seemed to stem from the the thinly veiled accusations of some here that SAHM's are nothing but a bunch of parasites.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 08:20 AM
Give us some quotes Niall.  Show us what you are talking about.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:20 AM
As I mentioned before, this isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing here:

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8842

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3290
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 14, 2006, 08:23 AM
Quote
I'm disappointed but sadly not surprised. This is just the latest in an ongoing trend I've seen here at SYG -- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.

Dare I say it, but recognizing who your allies are does not seem to be the MRM's strong point.


Well, I'll also (redundantly) add that tb is a woman.  I reiterate that point to highlight the fact that SYG do accommodate the 'female viewpoint' (put in quotes because even you Niall could not distinguish that tb was a woman).  

We've had manhoodsbliss (confused gender feminist) on here contributing absolutely ZERO in meaningful discussion yet most posters here showed infinite patience towards her.  lkanneg is another example - we accommodated her point of view too.  devia as well.  This is a very tolerant board.   Tolerant because when you are armed with truth, you can accomodate liars to a certain extent.  It's feminist boards who, like the Chinese government, must ban those who disagree with the party line and annoyingly come armed with facts.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 08:34 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
As I mentioned before, this isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing here:

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8842

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3290


No thanks.  Please don't evade the issue here. Stick with this thread only for now.  Later we can move on to other threads if need be.  Please back up this statement:

Quote
any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:36 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Give us some quotes Niall.  Show us what you are talking about.


Certainly.

Mr.Bad wrote:

Quote
In my book it's no longer acceptable to declare oneself as "not a feminist" - it's simply not good enough. Unless you're an active MRA, and even better an anti-feminist (i.e., anti-sexist) then you're part of the problem. Period.


Christiane responded:  

Quote
I've thought about this, Mr. Bad, and I would like to gently disagree with you. I think the road toward truly seeing injustice is sometimes just that: a road. Someone who is not as far along the road as you is not necessarily part of the problem. Declaring oneself "not a feminist"
might better be viewed as a necessary first step on that road.

If your goal is to garner wider support for your cause, I don't think it's productive to dismiss those whose interest has been piqued, who are beginning to think about issues they didn't notice before. On the contrary, every person who looks at your issues and declares her/himself "not a feminist" where no such declaration existed before, represents a potential vote in your favor. And you need more votes. If the MRM is going to effect real legislative change, you need more votes. Your enemy is formidable.


Galt responded:

Quote
Women have the very real possibility of getting it out of men - sometimes to the tune of millions, without any work (see Heather & Paul) - or getting money by working for it. Or usually a combination of the two.

But given that situation, and the fact that most women look to marry up, a man knows that he would be destroying his life if he let himself be supported by a woman. Aside from the shame from society, he wouldn't have the perks of a divorce court on his side if something went wrong, and he wouldn't have the major perk of being able to easily get some other woman to support him (as women can do much more easily with men).

Work can definitely be a source of satisfaction if you are in particular occupations, mostly professions, but even then I notice that almost everyone who wins the lotto quits work. And lots and lots of people are in jobs they hate.

On the bad side, what bothers me is the utter lack of empathy that many or most women have about that - they don't care to understand it, the guy pays and that's that.


Christiane:

Quote
I resent the blanket assertion that a SAHM is "living off a man". Divorce happens. People, of both genders, act like shits sometimes. But I am no more "living off my man" than he is living off me. It's a partnership. And I respect him as head of our household. I'm not an evangelical Christian, and I'm not alone in respecting my husband as head of our household. There are millions of us out here, Galt. Call it evolutionary, whatever, but we're here.

The vast majority of "traditional" households work because the marriage partners are just that: partners. My point is, and I see and respect yours, is the MRM is perhaps missing out on a source of support from SAHM's. Whatever your personal views, this is a place you will likely find female support.


And here's what Galt said:

Quote
There ARE, however, situations with housewives that are not optimal for men. There ARE women living off men, which may be OK, until something happens (like the husband loses his job, with no good prospects for the future) and he gets to see that love isn't exactly absolute love after all.

So please join in with me in condemning THOSE housewives. LOL I'm not attacking you personally.


This is kind of disengenous. Notice how Galt says he's not criticizing her personally, yet goes on to point out that "shit happens" and couples get divorced, the implication being that ANYONE who makes this decision to be a SAHM is making a choice that is bad for the couple and ultimately the man.

Edited to add: I didn't bother to add TB's contemptuous post which really fanned the flames, because I think that speaks for itself.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 08:38 AM
Niall,

In the first "Galt responded", I was clearly responding to what Scarbo said, not to what Christiane said.

You're chopping and hacking as you wish.

Quote
This is kind of disengenous. Notice how Galt says he's not criticizing her personally, yet goes on to point out that "shit happens" and couples get divorced, the implication being that ANYONE who makes this decision to be a SAHM is making a choice that is bad for the couple and ultimately the man.


Read what I said. Some women who don't work ARE using the man, and I will definitely stick by that.  That is clearly brought out when I ask for people to join me in condemning THOSE [particular] housewives.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 08:46 AM
All I see is Galt disagreeing with her.  Where is anyone "shitting" on women for offering strategic advice? Frankly that looks like a false accusation from you as far as I can tell.  I could pull quite a few quotes from folks on this thread that were much more nasty than what you quoted.  




Quote from: "Niall"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Give us some quotes Niall.  Show us what you are talking about.


Certainly.

Mr.Bad wrote:

Quote
In my book it's no longer acceptable to declare oneself as "not a feminist" - it's simply not good enough. Unless you're an active MRA, and even better an anti-feminist (i.e., anti-sexist) then you're part of the problem. Period.


Christiane responded:  

Quote
I've thought about this, Mr. Bad, and I would like to gently disagree with you. I think the road toward truly seeing injustice is sometimes just that: a road. Someone who is not as far along the road as you is not necessarily part of the problem. Declaring oneself "not a feminist"
might better be viewed as a necessary first step on that road.

If your goal is to garner wider support for your cause, I don't think it's productive to dismiss those whose interest has been piqued, who are beginning to think about issues they didn't notice before. On the contrary, every person who looks at your issues and declares her/himself "not a feminist" where no such declaration existed before, represents a potential vote in your favor. And you need more votes. If the MRM is going to effect real legislative change, you need more votes. Your enemy is formidable.


Galt responded:

Quote
Women have the very real possibility of getting it out of men - sometimes to the tune of millions, without any work (see Heather & Paul) - or getting money by working for it. Or usually a combination of the two.

But given that situation, and the fact that most women look to marry up, a man knows that he would be destroying his life if he let himself be supported by a woman. Aside from the shame from society, he wouldn't have the perks of a divorce court on his side if something went wrong, and he wouldn't have the major perk of being able to easily get some other woman to support him (as women can do much more easily with men).

Work can definitely be a source of satisfaction if you are in particular occupations, mostly professions, but even then I notice that almost everyone who wins the lotto quits work. And lots and lots of people are in jobs they hate.

On the bad side, what bothers me is the utter lack of empathy that many or most women have about that - they don't care to understand it, the guy pays and that's that.


Christiane:

Quote
I resent the blanket assertion that a SAHM is "living off a man". Divorce happens. People, of both genders, act like shits sometimes. But I am no more "living off my man" than he is living off me. It's a partnership. And I respect him as head of our household. I'm not an evangelical Christian, and I'm not alone in respecting my husband as head of our household. There are millions of us out here, Galt. Call it evolutionary, whatever, but we're here.

The vast majority of "traditional" households work because the marriage partners are just that: partners. My point is, and I see and respect yours, is the MRM is perhaps missing out on a source of support from SAHM's. Whatever your personal views, this is a place you will likely find female support.


And here's what Galt said:

Quote
There ARE, however, situations with housewives that are not optimal for men. There ARE women living off men, which may be OK, until something happens (like the husband loses his job, with no good prospects for the future) and he gets to see that love isn't exactly absolute love after all.

So please join in with me in condemning THOSE housewives. LOL I'm not attacking you personally.


This is kind of disengenous. Notice how Galt says he's not criticizing her personally, yet goes on to point out that "shit happens" and couples get divorced, the implication being that ANYONE who makes this decision to be a SAHM is making a choice that is bad for the couple and ultimately the man.

Edited to add: I didn't bother to add TB's contemptuous post which really fanned the flames, because I think that speaks for itself.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: bluegrass on Jun 14, 2006, 08:46 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Raised 4-6 children, canned produce from her garden, raised livestock, sewed and laundered clothing(by hand), cleaned with lye and water, often hauled 40kg of water a day, etc. etc. Often in addition to bringing in money via a cottage industry.

She produced approximately 1/2 of what her family consumed.

Over the last century the bread winner has taken over the traditional tasks of the homesteader(now a home-maker). He(or, rarely, she) purchases clothing(previously made by the lady of the house), purchases fruits and vegetables (formerly harvested by the lady of the house), purchases meats (formerly raised, and often slaughtered, by the lady of the house) and also has basically taken over the tasks of cleaning by purchasing automated cleaning devices (such as vacuumes, washer and dryer, dishwasher, etc.)


Good points as usual, Typhonblue.

200 years ago being a homemaker was a back-breaking, full-time job for a lot of people, especially the rural population.

But as society has changed, men are still expected, and brainwashed into, taking on their full traditional responsibilities although this is no longer offset quid pro quo. The propensity on the part of women to "marry up" has remained, but I'm not sure anymore exactly WHAT some of them are offering in return.

What did Heather Mills provide in return for the very high lifestyle that Paul provided for her?  Besides sex?


I thnk two important ways to look at it are these:

1.  These days, much of what women used to make is now made in factories by wage earners.  The things women used to make are bought with the wages.

2.  The time needed to maintain a home and family has reduced drastically in the last 100 years and even in the last 50 years.  The time spent at a fulltime job has changed little.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the situation where one parent stays home while the other works is actually a bum deal for both participants and BOTH are crazy for doing it.

But the good DR is correct in pointing out that women usually have the choice, but even that's an illusion since we're all supposed to be accountable.

Much of it is a throwback to earlier times when we really DID need to have bigger families.  For any family with more than one kid, it's because that's what they want -- it has no benefit other than that and once you get past one kid, it becomes almost a necessity that someone stays home.

But we live in a society and an economy where one MUST be able to bring home a wage one way or another.  To opt out of that is to not really be able to take care of oneself.  To not be able to take care of oneself is to be childish in my mind.

The flipside is that to unilaterally remove oneself daily from the family is to marginalize oneself from the family.  The end result of that is total objectification.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:48 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Read what I said. Some women who don't work ARE using the man, and I will definitely stick by that.  That is clearly brought out when I ask for people to join me in condemning THOSE housewives, in other words the subset that is using a man.

Or do you dispute that, Niall?  Do you claim that no woman on the face of the planet has ever used a man for money?  LOL


I NEVER said or implied that and challenge you to come up with any proof that I did.

What I am getting at is your basic claim which seems to be that the loyalty and value of SAHMs as a whole should be questioned because of the actions of a few.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:53 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
All I see is Galt disagreeing with her.  Where is anyone "shitting" on women for offering strategic advice? Frankly that looks like a false accusation from you as far as I can tell.  I could pull quite a few quotes from folks on this thread that were much more nasty than what you quoted.


OK fine. Galt isn't "shitting on" her, he's merely disagreeing with her. But I think he's disagreeing her for the wrong reasons. But that's just my opinion, so I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. If it was a false accusation, I'm sorry.

And when I think about it, it was really TB's comment which pissed me off. It was inflamatory and served no useful purpose.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 08:56 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
What I am getting at is your basic claim which seems to be that the loyalty and value of SAHMs as a whole should be questioned because of the actions of a few.


I don't think I'm basing my opinion on the "actions of a few", I think I'm basing it on the structure of things.

By the way, I see "SAHM" coming up more frequently, which implies that she has small kids to look after.

That's not the only area being discussed here, in fact it's the least likely area.

Women who have no kids and who don't work, and who are supported by men, are also certainly under discussion here.  They aren't "SAHMs".
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 08:59 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
But I think he's disagreeing her for the wrong reasons.


LOL.

So instead of presenting your own opinion, you start up with the "women's voices being denied". Instead of outlining why I am wrong (according to you), you take a tangential approach.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 09:00 AM
Quote from: "IMHO"
I reiterate that point to highlight the fact that SYG do accommodate the 'female viewpoint' (put in quotes because even you Niall could not distinguish that tb was a woman).


I knew she was a woman ever since she first started posting on the ifeministsBB.

Could you please provide proof for your assertion, IMHO? Or are you just talking out of your ass, as I suspect?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 09:11 AM
I think Dr. Evil is right - if nothing else, this seems to be a very explosive topic.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 09:13 AM
So are you withdrawing your accusation that this board routinely "shits" on women who offer strategic advice?  If so, I think you owe us an apology along with a retraction.

Quote from: "Niall"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
All I see is Galt disagreeing with her.  Where is anyone "shitting" on women for offering strategic advice? Frankly that looks like a false accusation from you as far as I can tell.  I could pull quite a few quotes from folks on this thread that were much more nasty than what you quoted.


OK fine. Galt isn't "shitting on" her, he's merely disagreeing with her. But I think he's disagreeing her for the wrong reasons. But that's just my opinion, so I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. If it was a false accusation, I'm sorry.

And when I think about it, it was really TB's comment which pissed me off. It was inflamatory and served no useful purpose.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 09:18 AM
Here's another quote -- this one from neonsamuri -- that warrants closer scrutiny:

Quote from: "neonsamurai"
I think you'd be swimming against the tide trying to convince SAHM's that the MRM is worthy of their time and effort. In the UK they are bombarded with daytime TV which is aimed solely at them and magazines like Ok! Now! Hello! Top Sante etc.

The majority of this media entertainment is just re-enforcing how hard it is to be a SAHM (just ask Oprah) and justifying their existence. Any program that tried to tell them how easy they have it, or that their husbands are working themselves to death or that they need to give more TLC to their significant others wouldn't be liked. Our media thrive on the victimhood of women because that's what gets the viewers to watch.


Stop a moment and think as to how offensive and condescending this statement is. It implies that no SAHM could be capable of critical thinking. Yes, the media is a powerful influence no doubt about that. And certainly it stands to reason that a significant number of SAHM's -- those who are because of limited education and job skills -- might buy into this, but many more do not. Many SAHM's are bright, women capable of thinking outside the box, so to speak and because they think independently, they don't buy this bullshit hook line and sinker like so many others might.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 09:32 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
So are you withdrawing your accusation that this board routinely "shits" on women who offer strategic advice?  If so, I think you owe us an apology along with a retraction.


Yes, I guess that means I am withdrawing my accusation and that the withdrawal comes with an apology on my part.

I guess I just reponded with my emotions for the most part throughout this thread a) because of TB's inflamatory remark and b) I have, in the past, seen female posters here get attacked by MRA's who are so wrapped up in their own bitterness that they sometimes can't objectively see what someone is really trying to say. (Earlier I cited two other threads which I felt to be evidence supporting that assertion.)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: hereandthere on Jun 14, 2006, 09:41 AM
Quote
Stop a moment and think as to how offensive and condescending this statement is. It implies that no SAHM could be capable of critical thinking.


I think it boils down to a matter of "should i do something?" See, if we take this as an example, its not that all SAHMs are incapable of critical thinking. the thing is, all those media oprah shows they watch, do not even make them think. i mean, SAHMs can think. but they are apt to choose not to.. because they want those things they pick up from the media to be true.  ooh we are oppressed! yes its true! men are useless! yes its true!

no doubt yes, there will be some SAHMs who do see through the bullshit. but many wouldn't even bother because they just want some sort of twisted satisfaction from thinking that they "have the worst job in the world" and therefore the world should put them on a pedestal to be worshipped.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 09:46 AM
As a side note:

Propaganda DOES work on the masses.  It really does.  That's not only the basis of a lot of marketing campaigns, it's also the basis for getting one country hepped up against another country, or a target group.

Oprah & Co. ARE undoubtedly broadcasting propaganda day in and day out to their target audience.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 09:56 AM
Thank you Niall.  I appreciate your maturity here.  The SAHM is a very tough issue.  


Quote from: "Niall"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
So are you withdrawing your accusation that this board routinely "shits" on women who offer strategic advice?  If so, I think you owe us an apology along with a retraction.


Yes, I guess that means I am withdrawing my accusation and that the withdrawal comes with an apology on my part.

I guess I just reponded with my emotions for the most part throughout this thread a) because of TB's inflamatory remark and b) I have, in the past, seen female posters here get attacked by MRA's who are so wrapped up in their own bitterness that they sometimes can't objectively see what someone is really trying to say. (Earlier I cited two other threads which I felt to be evidence supporting that assertion.)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 10:00 AM
How about an explaination?

The implication, to me, was that C was speaking for the *entire* group of home-makers when she said "we love men" and that also, implicit in that statement was, "and women who work don't."

She spoke for homemakers, and so did I.

I'm tired of the general perception that a homemaker is some sort of boon to men (and not to the woman in question). Providing a group of people with all the necessities of life and time to pursue their intellectual hobbies is not oppression. It's entitlement.

Being a homemaker allows women time to involve themselves in local and national politics(thus making their voices proportionately more heard), involve themselves in the politics of consumerism, create more extensive and stronger social nets, raise children that are emotionally loyal to them(and grow up to be socially, financially and politically loyal as well). Being a homemaker is an enormous privilage and the first time *in history* a huge population of women had it, what did they do?

1. Watch the men they "loved" leave house and work at jobs that slowly (or in some cases) rapidly killed them and then decide they should shoulder some of the responsibility of maintaining the family so that the men who they loved could live longer and enjoy their lives more? (Note that I'm not refering to women who work from home in a homebased business or are homesteaders.)

2. Develop a philosophy that justifies treating the men who provide for them as oppressors and abusers? And, in the cases where they *did* bring home money, maintain the "my money is mine, his money is ours" dichotomy?  

Homemakers developed feminism. And now that many men are looking at the situation and saying they'd *prefer* a woman out working, women want to go back to the "way it was."

Don't let them. Women's power is in the time and control they have as homemakers. If men have to give up the so-called power they have as worker drones, women should have to give up the real power *they* have to form and shape the next generation.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 14, 2006, 10:24 AM
Can we sound the 'All Clear'?

Very good points on both(all) sides IMHO.
Quote
Yes, I guess that means I am withdrawing my accusation and that the withdrawal comes with an apology on my part.
Smart move Niall. You just gained some friends and lost some enemies.
Quote
Propaganda DOES work on the masses. It really does. That's not only the basis of a lot of marketing campaigns, it's also the basis for getting one country hepped up against another country, or a target group.
Undoubtedly a valid observation.  Let's take on the 'manipulators' instead of each other.

But I did like:
Quote
And when I think about it, it was really TB's comment which pissed me off. It was inflamatory and served no useful purpose.
I reckon TB must have studied fencing at some time. I believe it's called a 'feint', so that the next thrust of her opponent goes in a direction she already anticipated. She then comes back with an argument you could have agreed with in the first place.  8)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: stands2p on Jun 14, 2006, 10:31 AM
Success for any movement requires getting people into your tent.  Either SAHM's are a potential source of support or they are not.  SAHMantha is an amalgam of my Aunt, one of my kid's friend's mom and a few sitcom moms.  In the following scene she receives a visitor...

[SAHMantha is at home, the baby is down for her nap, the older kids are at school.  She has had a busy morning; the house is clean, errands are run and the evening meal is in the oven, she has a moment to herself when:]

[Knock on Door, SAHMantha answers.]

[Non-threatening but still masculine Scott Bakula (no idea what his politics are, my wife digs him and the casting director called in sick today) stands with a clipboard and a friendly smile.]

Bakula: Good afternoon ma'am.  My name is Scott and I'm the director of outreach for the Men's Rights Movement.  I'm talking to stay at home Moms about Men's rights, could I have a moment of your time?

SAHMantha:   Well, normally I'd say no but I have a few minutes and you DO seem like a nice, non-threatening fellow so sure, come on in.

[They take a seat in the living room.  SAHMantha offers a wide range of refreshments.  Bakula selects a soda pop soft drink (he always says it this way since using the wrong term in the wrong part of the country inevitably leads to confusion.)]

SAHMantha:  Why is there a Men's rights movement?  I thought men had it pretty good and most people were worried about women, children, the poor, the environment and... other stuff.

Bakula:  That's a good question.  There are lots of issues out there and it's easy to assume that anyone who isn't complaining must be doing just fine.  Men are, by nature reluctant, to speak up when they have a problem.  The Men's Rights Movement wants people like you to know about the suicide rate for men, the effects of false accusations of rape and child abuse, the rates for death and injury in the workplace for men for example.  We want to tell you about the importance of fathers in the family and in the lives of children.

SAHMantha:  But our family is happy.  I think those problems you are talking about are important but aren't they symptoms of things like poverty or drug abuse or teen pregnancy or something?  I guess I don't see any kind of conspiracy against men.  Some people just have messed up lives don't you think?

Bakula:   We in the Men's Rights Movement see a definite pattern of concerted effort in the courts, in the news media, in academia and in public schools to diminish men's rights in family law, to portray men as violent abusers, to teach young people lies about gender relations and short change our sons in the classroom.

SAHMantha:  Well, that all sounds like business as usual to me.  The world is going to heck in a hand basket because people don't care about anything anymore.  My husband and I teach our children the values we were raised on and we teach them how sick the world is becoming.  I don't think men are being singled out are they?

Bakula:  That's a good point.  Some might say it is the family that is truly under attack.  There are some schools of thought, socialism for example, who teach that the traditional family is obsolete.  One way they advance their agenda is by attacking what they call "the patriarchy."  They claim that men oppress women and that women should take whatever measures are necessary to balance the scales.

SAHMantha:  Patriarchy?  That sounds like feminism to me.  You must be one of those anti-feminists.  My niece came home from college last summer going on and on about feminism.  If she found out I let you in here she'd probably have a conniption fit.  

Bakula:  Feminists are the most vocal opponents of men's rights but we can leave them out of our discussion.  Men's rights advocates want their sisters, their daughters, their mothers and their wives and all women to be treated decently in life right along with men and boys so let's leave the feminists to their own devices and talk about Men's Rights.

SAHMantha:  So you don't care if I consider myself a feminist?

Bakula:  Certainly not.  If you care about men as people and about the importance of the family then we have a lot to talk about.  You mentioned that your family is happy and that's a real blessing.  Does your husband work outside the home?

SAHMantha:  He does.  He works hard too.  We decided back before we got married that he would pursue a career and I would look after the home and care for the children.  Some of my friends gave me a hard time but it was right for us.

Bakula:  You sound proud of what you both have accomplished.  Let me ask you this: How would you feel, hypothetically speaking, about writing a tribute to your husband and all he does?

SAHMantha:  Well, I wouldn't want it to go to his head.  It's not like we don't have our problems.  Sometimes he gets it in his head that since he brings home the paycheck he is the lord of the manor or something and I have to take him down a peg or two if you know what I mean.  Then there's my girlfriends...

Bakula:  Your girlfriends?

SAHMantha:  Yeah, sometimes my husband calls them "The Coven."  We get together sometimes for a girl's night out or a day at the spa or shopping or something.  A couple of them aren't married anymore and they take this attitude like every marriage is as bad as theirs was, like it's only a matter of time.

Bakula:  So they wouldn't approve of you paying tribute to your husband's efforts as a husband and father?

SAHMantha:  That's an understatement.  They would think I had lost my mind or had a lobotomy or something.  They already call me Stepford behind my back.

Bakula: Stepford, referring to The Stepford Wives, the servile housewives from the sci-fi thriller?

SAHMantha:  That's them.

Bakula:  So they don't approve of your lifestyle as it is?

SAHMantha:  I think they are just teasing for the most part.  I think they respect my choices when it comes right down to it.

Bakula:  But how about you?  Do you think a tribute to your husband would cause your husband to act differently; take something away from your marriage, your family life?

SAHMantha:  No, I guess it would be like giving him an early father's day card.  He'd probably take us all out to dinner and be all...you know (she blushes) happy and stuff.

Bakula:  Well then, I think that is a great place to start.  Here is a postage paid envelope and some examples of letters others have written to get you started.  Your tribute can include names or not as you choose.  Each and every tribute will be posted at (really cool, focus group tested url) where you and others can read more about men's rights and the importance of families.
It's been a pleasure talking to you but I'm afraid I must be going.


[Totally righteous special effects cause Bakula's silhouette to shimmer and flash with bolts of eerie but not scary energy.  He disappears from SAHMantha's living room leaving only the glossy, well-produced literature.  She collects her thoughts for a moment and begins writing her tribute to her husband.]
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Somebody else on Jun 14, 2006, 10:48 AM
Between all the "Oprah"-style propaganda and the just plain straight forward male-bashing in the media (TV shows and advertisements) the general societal opinion of men is very low.

We're idiots who can barely dress ourselves. This message is pounded into SAHMs (actually into everyone). Not that it needs to be. People like to hear things that boost them up, even if it's only tearing somebody else down to give the illusion of a boost up. How many men have heard their S.O. say something to the effect of, "I don't know how you survived before I came along" followed by some comment about how stupid or incompetent he is.

SAHMs could benefit their families greatly. Stretch the family finances by doing all they can. Make clothes, rather than buy all the time. Buy food in bulk and can it. Grow a garden where applicable. Cut coupons. Pool together with other SAHMs for greater buying power or labor management, i.e. cooking quantities of food together and freezing it.

Do they? Most, no.

The feminist brain-washing has most believing that even though the husband/father is the sole breadwinner working, what, 40-60-80 hour weeks, he's supposed to come home and do his 50% of the housework. Some country or another was considering legislation to force the issue.

So I see the problem as not only trying to bring SAHMs over to "our" side, but to also undo the propaganda and get them to do more for the family unit and at the same time see the value of all the things their men are doing.

It's an uphill battle and we're undermined at every step. Although it is encouraging to see more talk about the "plight" of men in the news.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: GregA on Jun 14, 2006, 10:54 AM
Just a nitpick...

Nowdays it would cost far more to make your own clothes, and do a nice job, than to simply shop around when you buy clothes.  Plus, homemade clothes would be... Home made.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Somebody else on Jun 14, 2006, 11:07 AM
Maybe initially, but that's where the pooling the buying power would come in, so no it wouldn't. And don't even get into the argument of, "but when you pay her for her time" BS.

And a reasonably competent person CAN make clothes that don't look "homemade". I'll assume you meant shoddy looking. Skills, you know, those things people used to have, before it became fashionable to be lazy and just buy everything.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 11:12 AM
For what it's worth ... people (women) who grew up in the East Block and the old Soviet Union have a completely different attitude with regard to "homemakers" (the American type).

One author I used to like was Cathy Young.  She was born in the Soviet Union and only moved to the United States with her parents when she was an adult.

If you read her early writings as an author, there is almost some disgust at American-style "homemakers" ("... and THEY'RE friggin' complaining??"), but I think that she has gotten a lot more Americanized lately.

I remember a column of hers in the late 1980s or early 1990s about Lorna Wendt, who got $50 million or so from her GE-executive husband.  And Lorna was complaining that she had to coordinate moves and go to GE parties (where they served lobster and caviar).  That ENTITLED her to the big bucks.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 11:19 AM
It's probably all a matter of perspective.

I happen to think that American homemakers are probably the most pampered and fortunate people on the planet.  If you consider that the world progresses further with technology, they are probably the most pampered and fortunate people who have ever lived on the face of the planet earth.

I'm not sure that they are really in a position to compain a whole lot. Not if the husband works two-weeks-on, two-weeks-off on an offshore oil rig, busting his butt.  Or if the husband is up on a telephone pole in a thunderstorm trying to get power back up for her.  Or if he is a fireman or policeman.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Thomas on Jun 14, 2006, 11:21 AM
somebody else wrote:
Quote
The feminist brain-washing has most believing that even though the husband/father is the sole breadwinner working, what, 40-60-80 hour weeks, he's supposed to come home and do his 50% of the housework. Some country or another was considering legislation to force the issue.

It's probably Spain that you're thinking of. Don't worry. According to the CIA, Spain's total fertility rate is 1.28 children born/woman (2006 est.)

Spain will be one of the first European nations to be overrun by Muslims. Such laws won't last long.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 14, 2006, 12:23 PM
Quote
Spain will be one of the first European nations to be overrun by Muslims. Such laws won't last long.
Spain was 3/4 'overrun' by Muslims when America was still a vacant lot and it didn't do them any harm at all. They absorbed music, culture and fine buildings  that their Christian overlords never provided before. The Dark Ages in Europe ended when ancient Greek knowledge and wisdom, preserved by educated Arabs, returned to the west.

Thomas, I agree with what you say about Spain, but be careful about using the word 'muslim' as a perjorative. Adolf Hitler described Jews as 'Christ Killers'. Do we want to go down that road? Let's tread carefully.

To take an example from Galt:
Quote
It's probably all a matter of perspective. I happen to think that American homemakers are probably the most pampered and fortunate people on the planet. If you consider that the world progresses further with technology, they are probably the most pampered and fortunate people who have ever lived on the face of the planet earth.
Amen to that. While they bask in the privelege of broadcasting their selfish, infantile views to the whole world via Oprah and Hollywood, you, me and our brothers worldwide are paying for it.
We're all paying for it. We're cooking in our own oil.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 14, 2006, 12:34 PM
Christiane,

I am just a wife who stayed home with the kids, a joint decision between my husband and me. I am also an MRA. I am not stupid nor brilliant, just a normal woman.  I am brought up because I left here in large part due to the Galt/TB tag team and animosity over SAHMs.


You will likely get the obligatory "Who me?", but ultimately, I chose less stress in my life over hitting my head against a brick wall. I am not a victim, before anyone claims that is what I am saying. I just chose to leave. After hearing statements similar to 'working men do 90% of all support to the family,' statements which cannot in any logical or scientific way be backed by real data, then being ridiculed for my disagreement, I decided the positive was outweighed by the negative. I sincerely miss many here, there are some damn good folks here.  I have no clue what that comma statement was about.

Dr E, with respect, there are a vocal minority here who do indeed discredit any female criticism of the MRA movement, even from those who are active and loyal and had been here for years. Even when they have a very good point.

Alicia Go Mavs is one, the last one I read before leaving. SHe had a good point and many chose to shoot the messenger for lack of writing skills rather than take the point. She was put on the defensive, got upset, and the point lost.

No one is going to come out and say "you are a woman, you have no right to speak." However that is in effect what happens by the vocal minority. Most members here would not do such a thing. It only takes a few.

Many SAHM's  tend to have stayed home out of concern for their children. The SAHMs I have spoken to have been VERY open to the MRM when approached from the angle of what is best for their sons. They also have time during business hours, and yes, more free time over all, to make things happen. It is very counterproductive to dismiss them out of hand because all of two or three people on this board disagrees with their lifestyle choices.


MY advice to you, Christiane? Don't bother. The majority of men here have no issue with a couple choosing to have the lesser wage earner care for children,  because it is division of labor;  if both parents worked, you would have to pay someone to do the job. IN some cases, such as mine, it would have cost me to work full time. Yes there are family court issues in case of divorce, but that is not a given.

I wouldn't bother.  I can tell you, I am much happier and less stressed not defending or ignoring what is to me unfair and bigoted broad statements based on the dislikes of two or three members. As much as I miss some of the members here, I had to look at my over all well being.

PM me if would like.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 12:43 PM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Dr E, with respect, there are a vocal minority here who do indeed discredit any female criticism of the MRA movement, even from those who are active and loyal and had been here for years. Even when they have a very good point.

Alicia Go Mavs is one, the last one I read before leaving. SHe had a good point and many chose to shoot the messenger for lack of writing skills rather than take the point. She was put on the defensive, got upset, and the point lost.

No one is going to come out and say "you are a woman, you have no right to speak." However that is in effect what happens by the vocal minority. Most members here would not do such a thing. It only takes a few.


While my apology still stands, you guys would do well to take note...that here we have someone saying EXACTLY the same thing I said earlier.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 12:51 PM
What is the difference between a woman coming on here and declaring herself a homemaker or declaring herself a feminist?

Both appear, at least to me, to have an ideological basis in entitlement.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 01:08 PM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
I just chose to leave. After hearing statements similar to 'working men do 90% of all support to the family,' statements which cannot in any logical or scientific way be backed by real data.


They can be supported by a simple logical argument.

A family requires X material goods and X services.

How many are provided by the working spouce and how many are provided by the homemaker?

Today a homemaker provides the following services:

1. A clean house. (Consumer shortcuts readily available)

2. Well raised children that are loyal to their fathers.

3. Well managed finances.

4. Limited cooking. (Consumer shortcuts readily available)

How many actually do? And how do these limited services compare to what the breadwinner provides the family:

1. Shelter.

2. Food and water.

3. Clothing.

4. Consumer shortcuts to ease the homemaker's work load. (So, in essence, the breadwinner *also* provides portions of cleaning, cooking and child-care.)

5. Transportion.

6. Education.

7. Entertainment.

8. On and on.

And the simplest argument is this: Why is there no daytime tv for men at work? If women are working just as hard as men, then men should have time to watch tv at work as well!

Women over the last century have abdicated their duty to their families. Homemaking was one iteration(entitlement with a bit of window dressing), feminism was the next(pure entitlement). Always the movement is toward "what can men do for me?"

And if it's only a "tiny minority" of men who are questioning this automatic attitude of entitlement that women have, "what can HE do for ME?" rather than "how can I benefit my family?"... then I hope I can do something to make it a greater number.

(If anything it pisses off she-who-shall-not-be-named if her daughters never have the chance to follow her path in life.)

Finally, I have taken men to task on here and I have taken my lumps too. I don't think any viewpoint is censored.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 01:12 PM
This seems to be turning into something other than a discussion of the issue itself.

Victimized people and the like.

I was never very good at presenting displays like that, I always wanted to discuss the content and the issue itself.

Now I see how really desparate a certain camp is to keep its privilege.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 01:14 PM
Of course Typhonblue is showing reality.

And just as naturally: Society isn't going to see it at all.  The Big Provider may lose his Vagina privileges for a time if he dares glance at reality, so he isn't going to want to see it either.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Somebody else on Jun 14, 2006, 01:14 PM
Quote
..."what can HE do for ME?" rather than "how can I benefit my family?"...


So, it was the feminists that killed JFK! For saying, "ask not what your husband can do for you, but what you can do for your family."

Sorry, cross-threaded the bolt. :lol:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 01:18 PM
Edited
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 01:24 PM
Hi BQ - Good to see you.

I think using Alicia as an example of someone who offered advice and was not greeted with open arms is not a fair example.  When she offered her advice she did so in a manner that was less than friendly.  That is putting it mildly. I firmly believe that if a man had offered similar feedback he too would have been treated in a similar manner.

The SAHM issue is a hot button for the SAHM's and those who find it a symbol of misandry and our culture's habit of seeing and treating men as disposable slaves.  Both sides have their viewpoints and both are welcome here.  I hope we can avoid personal attacks in this discussion.

Here is what I wrote to Alicia on that thread:

Quote
Alicia - I know you and am sure that your message above was meant with the best intentions. I would urge you to read through it again and see if you can see how some might take it as condescending or even "holier than thou."

Quote
Quote:
Men will never understand that fear, so don't even pretend that you do.


snip


 
I remember from the 70's how feminists would forbid men to be a part of their decision making and planning.  Any man who spoke up with ideas or suggestions was immediately shouted down and told that he was not a woman and would never understand and therefore should stay out of things.  I don't think we come close to that.  I think the emotional nature of this issue pushes peoples buttons and folks tend to say things they don't really mean.






Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Christiane,

I am just a wife who stayed home with the kids, a joint decision between my husband and me. I am also an MRA. I am not stupid nor brilliant, just a normal woman.  I am brought up because I left here in large part due to the Galt/TB tag team and animosity over SAHMs.


You will likely get the obligatory "Who me?", but ultimately, I chose less stress in my life over hitting my head against a brick wall. I am not a victim, before anyone claims that is what I am saying. I just chose to leave. After hearing statements similar to 'working men do 90% of all support to the family,' statements which cannot in any logical or scientific way be backed by real data, then being ridiculed for my disagreement, I decided the positive was outweighed by the negative. I sincerely miss many here, there are some damn good folks here.  I have no clue what that comma statement was about.

Dr E, with respect, there are a vocal minority here who do indeed discredit any female criticism of the MRA movement, even from those who are active and loyal and had been here for years. Even when they have a very good point.

Alicia Go Mavs is one, the last one I read before leaving. SHe had a good point and many chose to shoot the messenger for lack of writing skills rather than take the point. She was put on the defensive, got upset, and the point lost.

No one is going to come out and say "you are a woman, you have no right to speak." However that is in effect what happens by the vocal minority. Most members here would not do such a thing. It only takes a few.

Many SAHM's  tend to have stayed home out of concern for their children. The SAHMs I have spoken to have been VERY open to the MRM when approached from the angle of what is best for their sons. They also have time during business hours, and yes, more free time over all, to make things happen. It is very counterproductive to dismiss them out of hand because all of two or three people on this board disagrees with their lifestyle choices.


MY advice to you, Christiane? Don't bother. The majority of men here have no issue with a couple choosing to have the lesser wage earner care for children,  because it is division of labor;  if both parents worked, you would have to pay someone to do the job. IN some cases, such as mine, it would have cost me to work full time. Yes there are family court issues in case of divorce, but that is not a given.

I wouldn't bother.  I can tell you, I am much happier and less stressed not defending or ignoring what is to me unfair and bigoted broad statements based on the dislikes of two or three members. As much as I miss some of the members here, I had to look at my over all well being.

PM me if would like.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 01:28 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Of course Typhonblue is showing reality.

And just as naturally: Society isn't going to see it at all.  The Big Provider may lose his Vagina privileges for a time if he dares glance at reality, so he isn't going to want to see it either.


Just a sec though. Working women aren't off the hook either. A lot of them consider their earnings to be purely their own(to be disposed of as they deam fit) while their mate's are to be used for the necessities of life. Thus, even with a working wife, a man can still end up being on the provider hook.

I have to say that the whole issue depresses me. I don't even know why homemakers argue the point(or other stripes of woman-firsting). It's not like they're going to loose an inch *ever* in this battle.

There will just be a tiny minority of people in one place and time that do not respect their choice because it's an entitlement that only women have access to.

They will always find men to support them, so what does it matter in the end?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: FP on Jun 14, 2006, 01:42 PM
Being painted with a broad brush sucks don't it? All female homemakers are entitlement princess gold-diggers vs all men are potential rapists...

Fighting out from under that broad, general stereotype is a hard thing to do, especially when the majority either fit that stereotype or the populace is brainwashed via propoganda such that perception becomes reality.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 14, 2006, 02:04 PM
Quote from: "FloorPie"
Being painted with a broad brush sucks don't it? All female homemakers are entitlement princess gold-diggers vs all men are potential rapists...

Fighting out from under that broad, general stereotype is a hard thing to do, especially when the majority either fit that stereotype or the populace is brainwashed via propoganda such that perception becomes reality.


The really sick part is that feminists have foisted both stereotypes on us, i.e., entitlement princess gold-diggers and potential rapists.  Femis like Hirshman disparage SAHMs and pretty much any contemporary feminist embraces the male-as-barbarian stereotype.  

That's where our common ground is and that's how and why we all have to unite against the common enemy.  And so, while there is much truth in what TB, Galt, et al. say, once again, I have to say I agree with Christiane on that score.  We should refrain from disparaging SAHMs if at all possible because she's made a good case (IMO) that they're potentially our natural allies.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: the sad geek on Jun 14, 2006, 02:05 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
They will always find men to support them, so what does it matter in the end?


This won't last. Feudalism didn't last. Rome fell. Barbarians became civilized.

In the end all that counts is fighting the good fight.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 14, 2006, 03:00 PM
Edited
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 03:06 PM
Warren Farrell has looked at this issue and has concluded that it is more financially efficient to have one parent stay at home with the kids when they are young and one to work full time.  I would guess that he feels strongly that it's also to the kids benifit to have a full time parent at home during the formative years.  I'm all for having a parent at home when the kids are young I am simply against the lack of choice that men face today.  Men are expected to work, work, work and to not have choices outside of full time employment.  Women seem to have more options.  

Hell, men are even seen as dangerous to their kids.  How messed up is that?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: GregA on Jun 14, 2006, 03:57 PM
Put me in the group of people who think dedicated housewives are a bad idea.  People gotta have something more than a couple of kids under the age of ive in their lives or else they go nuts.  Nevermind the quality that without other input, their job skills would get dangerously out of shape.  I mean, even if a woma has the best man ever and he provides for all her needs, material and otherwise, there is still the chance he could get hit by a bus.

So maybe a few months off after baby is born, until everyone adjusts (lol), but then after that back to work.  Either that, the stay at home person has to do something that brings them into meaninful contact with other adults.  Co-op pre-school during the early years, perhaps.  Go back to school, something part time.

The spouce that sits home watching tv, and eating bon bons is gonna be the one that cheats on you, or leaves the marriage to "go find themselves" or that sort of thing, IMO.

Cleaning house isn't enough IMO.  People invent stress in their lives if they dont have enough. I'v seen that over and over again....
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: the sad geek on Jun 14, 2006, 05:37 PM
Quote from: "GregA"
Cleaning house isn't enough IMO. People invent stress in their lives if they dont have enough. I'v seen that over and over again....


There's a saying in Dutch: "IJdelheid is des duivels oorkussen" which roughly translates as "Idleness is a great source of inspiration for the devil".
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 14, 2006, 05:37 PM
Quote
While my apology still stands, you guys would do well to take note...that here we have someone saying EXACTLY the same thing I said earlier.


Niall, you told me earlier "I'm talking out of my ass" for no good reason and you've insulted others here.  Now you're (sleazily) trying to take the high road again.  Take it from me: leave this thread while your tail is somewhere other than exactly between your legs.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: devia on Jun 14, 2006, 06:31 PM
It's been well proven that kids do better with a stay at home parent in a intact family home.  It's simply in the best interest of the child. Kids who have a parent at home afterschool are much less likely to be getting in trouble after school.

I agree though that having several children spaced leaves the stay at home parent without viable work skills. However middle class America is in a child drain state, two people having one child cuts the population. No easy answers to that

One thing that is apparent to me within this thread is a tone that is speaking out against the best interests of the child.. which is as I've been told a mainstay of what MRA's stand for.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 14, 2006, 06:44 PM
I cannot defend the SAHM/wage earner household, because I have been neatly put in a bind. Option A: If I cannot defend it logically, then I am wrong. Option B: If I can defend it logically, I am 'trying to justify my personal life choices,' thus still wrong. I have chosen option C: not play Typhon/Galt's little game.

Dr E, I do think Alicia's post was applicable. Her first post, pointing out a real flaw in some MRAs mindsets was not insulting. Later, when she was getting picked apart for her wording she did indeed get insulting, but that was not how she started out.


I certainly agree with idleness is a very bad thing. That has been the single most difficult part of being a SAHM, what makes this not a perfect privilage but a tradeoff with both good and bad sides. Side effects of not having an outside career including depression, lack of focus, isolation. These are real consequences of being at home. For people like me, who are very gregarious and need both company and  structure it can be very difficult.

However, making sure someone is home when my 10 year old is sick, and knowing for a fact where my 15 year old is after school every day and who he is with and if he is supervised makes it worth the negatives. Making sure I have time to cook from scratch healthy foods so my husband will live longer (If he died early, I would have a hefty life insurance policy so it isn't about the money. I do it because I kinda like the guy and like having him around.)  I do community services, like volunteering at a nursing home once a week with my dog and talking to school kids about dog safety. It breaks the loneliness and gives back to the community. Doesn't earn money but does better people's lives.

A good SAHM or dad makes sure the children are as loyal to their other parent as they are to themselves. Good parents make sure both are respected, period. Working parents are equally capable of poisoning children to the other parent as non-working. Red Herring.

I think that having a parent at home is never going to fade completely. It makes sense for parents to raise thier own children.  I sincerely hope that more men choose that option. Yes women need to give them that option, but at the same time men need to demand it as well. Most men would not even consider it, and that is an important social issue.

Money is very important. Yet it is not everything. Not everything can be quantified in terms of dollars. The older I get, the more I realize that. That said, when I go to work in three years to put the boys through college, the money I earn will help the boys. But my time spent home all these years also helped them. Why is one more important than the other?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 07:20 PM
Quote
Working women aren't off the hook either


Of course not; why would we be?   :roll:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: devia on Jun 14, 2006, 07:26 PM
Female...........................BAD.. (except for me)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 07:33 PM
Quote
I wouldn't bother. I can tell you, I am much happier and less stressed not defending or ignoring what is to me unfair and bigoted broad statements based on the dislikes of two or three members. As much as I miss some of the members here, I had to look at my over all well being.


I have to agree with that.  It's just not worth the heartache anymore.  I don't understand how TB can get away with false accusations (aka HER HONEST OPINION), but others are called to task for stating THEIR  HONEST OPINIONS and asked to prove them.  How dare TB tell Christiane she only loves men because they do her work!  And yet that's perfectly OK?  BULLSHIT.

 I know it's not my board, and I respect Dr. Evil, and I know it's hard work, but I have never once seen TB called to task for her unkind, cruel remarks.  She's an embarassment to me as a woman, quite frankly.

I know I'm signing my death warrant here, but I no longer care.  The hatred and contempt on the part of a few here is too much for me. Oh, no, I can't possibly work hard, I'M A FUCKING WOMAN, I'm a DRAIN on MY MAN, I may work 70 hours per week, but somehow I'm still FUCKING HIM OVER, according to Galt and Typhon and a few others as well.  I'm just NO DAMNED GOOD, because I'm a woman, and no matter what I do, I can't win.
Enough is enough.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 07:37 PM
Quote
I wouldn't bother. I can tell you, I am much happier and less stressed not defending or ignoring what is to me unfair and bigoted broad statements based on the dislikes of two or three members. As much as I miss some of the members here, I had to look at my over all well being.


I have to agree with that.  It's just not worth the heartache anymore.  I don't understand how TB can get away with false accusations (aka HER HONEST OPINION), but others are called to task for stating THEIR  HONEST OPINIONS and asked to prove them.  How dare TB tell Christiane she only loves men because they do her work!  And yet that's perfectly OK?  BULLSHIT.

 I know it's not my board, and I respect Dr. Evil, and I know it's hard work, but I have never once seen TB called to task for her unkind, cruel remarks.  She's an embarassment to me as a woman, quite frankly.

I know I'm signing my death warrant here, but I no longer care.  The hatred and contempt on the part of a few here is too much for me. Oh, no, I can't possibly work hard, I'M A FUCKING WOMAN, I'm a DRAIN on MY MAN, I may work 70 hours per week, but somehow I'm still FUCKING HIM OVER, according to Galt and Typhon and a few others as well.  So I hand over my money to him surreptitiously, I put my check on his desk when he's not looking, so as not to offend him, because it hurts him to have me support him, according to the EXPERT HERE, it's all just DISCRETIONARY MONEY.  Somehow I'm still a gold digger, a worthless tramp, an idiot, a child, a drain on my man, a drain on society.

Yeah, right. Typhon.  Yeah, right, Galt. Yeah, right, all you others.  
The truth is,

I'm just NO DAMNED GOOD, because I'm a woman, and no matter what I do, I can't win.

Enough is enough.



PS A BUNCH of you need to get the hell over yourselves.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 14, 2006, 07:38 PM
Quote
Making sure I have time to cook from scratch healthy foods so my husband will live longer (If he died early, I would have a hefty life insurance policy so it isn't about the money. I do it because I kinda like the guy and like having him around.)


Honey, you're new to this.  Feed the bastard arsenic in his vitamins.   He'll never know, and you'll get the dough.   Trust me on this.  If you need advice, click on:

SAHMParasitesRUs/killthebastard/arsenic.com

We've got you covered, babe.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 14, 2006, 07:38 PM
PS Some of you need to get the hell over yourselves.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 07:41 PM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
I cannot defend the SAHM/wage earner household, because I have been neatly put in a bind. Option A: If I cannot defend it logically, then I am wrong. Option B: If I can defend it logically, I am 'trying to justify my personal life choices,' thus still wrong. I have chosen option C: not play Typhon/Galt's little game.


I think the problem is that we're using two different argument styles.

Galt and I are using deductive and you are using inductive. We're offering logical arguments to describe population H on a aggregate level.

You seem to be saying "I do X,Y,Z therefore all homemakers provide as much for their familes as bread winners." You're using inductive reasoning, which generally has to be paired with some deductive premises to provide a valid conclusion. (Since it's going from specific to general.)

BTW, you say that idleness is a problem. Does your husband have the same problem? If not, then that sort of proves the point. (Personally I don't get the idea that idle time is a problem. Of course I grew up in a desert that had one channel with about 3 hours of english programming a day. In those circumstances you adapt to creating your own entertainment quickly. But YMMV.)

I also think the work experience can be very isolating too, in a different way.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: devia on Jun 14, 2006, 07:45 PM
Your not logical typhoon.

You've stated that both working and stay at homes moms are inherently a drain on their husbands.
There is a 15% wage difference between working men and women. hence your arguement lacks logic.

A couple of questions.

Does your husband make more then you do?
When you get pregnant and are unable to work how will you not be a leech on your husband?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 07:47 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
She's an embarassment to me as a woman, quite frankly.


Welcome to my world.

One century of unprecedented entitlement.

Achievements?

Not even feminism. *That* was invented by a man.

Quote
PS A BUNCH of you need to get the hell over yourselves.[/b]


My thoughts exactly.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: devia on Jun 14, 2006, 07:49 PM
Don't you have a degree that wouldn't have been avalible to you 100 years ago (advancements in technology nonwithstanding)?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 07:49 PM
Gracious CM.  Typhon and Galt are talking about a concept, an idea, they are not talking about you or BQ or Christiane.  It seems from my perspective that you are personalizing things here.  No one is singling you  out and saying you are less than adequate in some way.  They are talking on a theoretical level, not a personal level.  They are not attacking people.

Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
I wouldn't bother. I can tell you, I am much happier and less stressed not defending or ignoring what is to me unfair and bigoted broad statements based on the dislikes of two or three members. As much as I miss some of the members here, I had to look at my over all well being.


I have to agree with that.  It's just not worth the heartache anymore.  I don't understand how TB can get away with false accusations (aka HER HONEST OPINION), but others are called to task for stating THEIR  HONEST OPINIONS and asked to prove them.  How dare TB tell Christiane she only loves men because they do her work!  And yet that's perfectly OK?  BULLSHIT.

 I know it's not my board, and I respect Dr. Evil, and I know it's hard work, but I have never once seen TB called to task for her unkind, cruel remarks.  She's an embarassment to me as a woman, quite frankly.

I know I'm signing my death warrant here, but I no longer care.  The hatred and contempt on the part of a few here is too much for me. Oh, no, I can't possibly work hard, I'M A FUCKING WOMAN, I'm a DRAIN on MY MAN, I may work 70 hours per week, but somehow I'm still FUCKING HIM OVER, according to Galt and Typhon and a few others as well.  So I hand over my money to him surreptitiously, I put my check on his desk when he's not looking, so as not to offend him, because it hurts him to have me support him, according to the EXPERT HERE, it's all just DISCRETIONARY MONEY.  Somehow I'm still a gold digger, a worthless tramp, an idiot, a child, a drain on my man, a drain on society.

Yeah, right. Typhon.  Yeah, right, Galt. Yeah, right, all you others.  
The truth is,

I'm just NO DAMNED GOOD, because I'm a woman, and no matter what I do, I can't win.

Enough is enough.



PS A BUNCH of you need to get the hell over yourselves.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: devia on Jun 14, 2006, 07:52 PM
Dr Evil,

When someone states that all women are a drain on their man it is safe to say that it would include me as a woman. Generalizations are supposed to be not allowed here.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 07:57 PM
BQ We will have to agree to disagree about the alicia thing.  And so it goes.

I am with you on the importance of having a parent at home.  I am exhausted hearing the fems talk about the lack of importance of having a mom or dad be available to the little guys and little girls and their insistence on how wonderful day care is for kids.  What a huge crock of shit.  People who have raised kids know from first hand experience just how important that is.  Most feminists don't have a clue.  I would bet that Hugo will be teaching a class on parenting next semester!

It's also important to note that neither Typhon or Galt have kids and their perspective lacks that important experience.  I would bet that most people who have raised kids will tell you how important it is to have the parents around...they would also tell you that boredom is not a factor if you have kids under 6.  I was a partial SAHD when my kids were little and it was constant work.  No time to be bored.  

Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
I cannot defend the SAHM/wage earner household, because I have been neatly put in a bind. Option A: If I cannot defend it logically, then I am wrong. Option B: If I can defend it logically, I am 'trying to justify my personal life choices,' thus still wrong. I have chosen option C: not play Typhon/Galt's little game.

Dr E, I do think Alicia's post was applicable. Her first post, pointing out a real flaw in some MRAs mindsets was not insulting. Later, when she was getting picked apart for her wording she did indeed get insulting, but that was not how she started out.


I certainly agree with idleness is a very bad thing. That has been the single most difficult part of being a SAHM, what makes this not a perfect privilage but a tradeoff with both good and bad sides. Side effects of not having an outside career including depression, lack of focus, isolation. These are real consequences of being at home. For people like me, who are very gregarious and need both company and  structure it can be very difficult.

However, making sure someone is home when my 10 year old is sick, and knowing for a fact where my 15 year old is after school every day and who he is with and if he is supervised makes it worth the negatives. Making sure I have time to cook from scratch healthy foods so my husband will live longer (If he died early, I would have a hefty life insurance policy so it isn't about the money. I do it because I kinda like the guy and like having him around.)  I do community services, like volunteering at a nursing home once a week with my dog and talking to school kids about dog safety. It breaks the loneliness and gives back to the community. Doesn't earn money but does better people's lives.

A good SAHM or dad makes sure the children are as loyal to their other parent as they are to themselves. Good parents make sure both are respected, period. Working parents are equally capable of poisoning children to the other parent as non-working. Red Herring.

I think that having a parent at home is never going to fade completely. It makes sense for parents to raise thier own children.  I sincerely hope that more men choose that option. Yes women need to give them that option, but at the same time men need to demand it as well. Most men would not even consider it, and that is an important social issue.

Money is very important. Yet it is not everything. Not everything can be quantified in terms of dollars. The older I get, the more I realize that. That said, when I go to work in three years to put the boys through college, the money I earn will help the boys. But my time spent home all these years also helped them. Why is one more important than the other?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 07:59 PM
Quote from: "devia"
Don't you have a degree that wouldn't have been avalible to you 100 years ago (advancements in technology nonwithstanding)?


Madame Currie. Scientist. Completed her Masters in physics and mathematics in 1894.

I guess it wasn't illegal back then. (BTW, I suppose there have been *some* achievements. ;)

Historically many of the most famous scientists and inventors were self-taught and either independantly wealthy or supported by a patron. There was nothing stopping women, then, from becoming a scientist or inventor... after all many upperclass women lived lives of ease. They just chose to do different things with their ease then men.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 08:00 PM
Quote from: "devia"
Dr Evil,

When someone states that all women are a drain on their man it is safe to say that it would include me as a woman. Generalizations are supposed to be not allowed here.


Who said that?  Give me a quote.  I don't remember anyone making a statement about ALL women.  Maybe you are changing things a bit?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 08:05 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Gracious CM.  Typhon and Galt are talking about a concept, an idea, they are not talking about you or BQ or Christiane.  It seems from my perspective that you are personalizing things here.  No one is singling you  out and saying you are less than adequate in some way.  They are talking on a theoretical level, not a personal level.  They are not attacking people.


I'm not exactly sure how CM got involved since we were mainly talking about homemakers.

I said that a woman who expects a man to provide everything, or nearly everything for her upkeep is evincing a "what can he do for ME?" attitude. How CM, or even BQ and Christiane fall into that catagory of woman is entirely their own business. I doubt CM is anywhere near it from what I've read of her life story.  

As for "all or most women" having that attitude. I would say, yes, they do. Unless I'm an enormous exception. I've had to fight against the same attitude almost every step of the way with my relationship to my husband. And the woman I've talked to who I would judge as particularly self-aware also remark that they have seen the same unconscious predjudice in themselves.  

Women, in this society, are taught that men must provide for them. That this is a given... that it's even evolutionarily hardwired.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: devia on Jun 14, 2006, 08:09 PM
Quote
Madame Currie. Scientist. Completed her Masters in physics and mathematics in 1894


It was called being a lady, you might try reading some novels from that time to get an idea of what was expected regarding ladylike pursuits. Their have always been exceptions to every rule, that's like saying becaue there was Joan of Arc all women had the abilty and or were called on to be soldiers.

Try doing some research on which University gave her the degree, why, and how many were allowing women into that program at that time.

Dr Evil.. you're right.. Implied over and over again is not the same thing as stating it.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 08:15 PM
Quote from: "devia"
Quote
Madame Currie. Scientist. Completed her Masters in physics and mathematics in 1894


It was called being a lady, you might try reading some novels from that time to get an idea of what was expected regarding ladylike pursuits. Their have always been exceptions to every rule, that's like saying becaue there was Joan of Arc all women had the abilty and or were called on to be soldiers.

Try doing some research on which University gave her the degree, why, and how many were allowing women into that program at that time.

Dr Evil.. you're right.. Implied over and over again is not the same thing as stating it.


I don't really care about the standards women expected other women to adhere to. (Remember, morality and social decorum have always been women's past-times in the west.)

I'm just weird enough that I would have gone the *gasp* *faint* *good-heavens!* unlady-like route that she did.

Besides, I *have* read novels from that time period and as much as women were expected to be lady-like and adhere to social conventions, so were men.  

BTW, the evil-victorian-patriarchs(the industrialists in Society for the Encouragement of National Industry) gave Marie a scholarship so she could pursue her research after her studies.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:18 PM
Quote from: "IMHO"
Niall, you told me earlier "I'm talking out of my ass"


Yes, and what's more is that you've PROVED it for me. You said I didn't know TB was a woman and I told you were wrong, and all you can do is resort to childish ad hominems. Pathetic.

Hey, at least *I* had the balls to apologize when *I* was wrong.

Quote
Take it from me: leave this thread while your tail is somewhere other than exactly between your legs.


Oh, I will. I'm just about done with this thread, and quite possibly this board as well. (That still remains to be seen depending on what direction this thread takes in the next few days.)

Have a good one.  :roll:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: devia on Jun 14, 2006, 08:19 PM
What did her husband do again?

You must have a pretty privledged life.. where would you have moved to be accepted into a science program and who would have paid for it?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 14, 2006, 08:23 PM
Devia we are having enough difficulties on this thread without you trying to stir up more trouble.  Discuss the topic.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: devia on Jun 14, 2006, 08:25 PM
Did I bring up Madame Currie or did I answer what was brought up to me?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 14, 2006, 08:38 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
It's also important to note that neither Typhon or Galt have kids and their perspective lacks that important experience.


I don't have kids either, nor do ever I plan to. Yet my opinion on this is nothing like that of TB or Galt. I don't think this is a chasm between the childed and the childfree, but something else entirely. I don't know exactly what, but I have a few ideas. And I know better than to make those ideas publicly known.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 08:49 PM
Quote from: "devia"
What did her husband do again?

You must have a pretty privledged life.. where would you have moved to be accepted into a science program and who would have paid for it?


She recieved her education and her scholarship *before* she met her husband. In fact she met her husband at the lab she did her scholarship-funded research in.

Marie was not privilaged. She supported her sister's medical studies in Paris as a governess and tutor (in exchange her sister was going to support her through school when she graduated).

Yes, the Warsaw university didn't admit women but... does the existance of Bernard College mean that men in the US are oppressed?

She was still *able* to go to a university where she was accepted. If she had been born in western europe instead of eastern europe (or poland before the russian occupation, could have been the Czar's influence after all) then she wouldn't have had to move.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 14, 2006, 08:50 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Devia we are having enough difficulties on this thread without you trying to stir up more trouble.  Discuss the topic.


I brought up Madame Curie, Dr. Evil.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: GregA on Jun 14, 2006, 08:52 PM
Um part time stay at home parent here to child under 6...  As previously stated, I think an intact family is the best place for kids however, As for the notion of stay at home parenting being critical to children...

Stay at home parenting is an exercise in routein and drudgery.  Period.  You only have to look at the pictures of me aging over the last 5 years to see the effect it has had on me.  I have gone from full furry head of hear, to chrome dome.  Also, wrinkles on my face.  I have managed to keep my shape though.  I fully explect to wake up any day now and see the gray coming in.

After the house is clean, and everyone is fed (maybe an hour, outside two hours if you keep up with it every day) , it is off to the park, or play date or other some such innanity for the 900th consecutive day.  I guess I could just plop him off in front of the tv like so many of my peers anymore.

On top of that, you have the pre school and kindergarden teachers challenging you because you have been too involved, and your son is a little too good at reading and math and sports for his age, and he at risk of being a problem is school because he is bored with their content.  Again, mostly because of proactive TV limiting (I thought I was supposed to do that???, is this one of those things that everyone preaches the merits of but no one actually does it like abstaining from soda drinking and getting enough exercise???)

How about that reading to your kid every day?  Sounds great in practice, but guess what, as it turns out there are only a couple of hundred childrens books on the market.  Also you only get the novelty of reading a new book when the little ankle biter is interested in reading a new book.  While 'The giving tree' was on one time my favorite childrens book, after you have read it 50 or so times, even that childrens classic gets old.  Never mind the looks that I AS A MAN get when he references 'In the Night Kitchen' at pre-school.

As far as I can tell, the skill I lack that makes child care such a burden is the ability to yammer hours on end, needlessly, on the phone.  If I had peers that did that and I could find myself enjoying it, I would be much more well suited to child care.

At the playground I have met one woman who really enjoys the whole stay at home parent thing.  Her secret is smoking as much pot as she can get her hands on.

Yes, parents are important, critically important.  But I have to beleive that parenting should be shared.  I simply can't accept that people are actualizing their full potential as stay at home parents (women or men).  

The idleness of parenting has been a challenge to my marriage.  Wife wants more, I say hell no.  The compromise we may reach one day is a nanny (although it looks like mannys have more street cred now days).  This child is about ready to enter school full time, and I feel we have given him an excellent start in life.  I dont think it is in either of us to do that for more children.  A nanny seems to be the way to make sure someone is in the house.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 14, 2006, 10:06 PM
Quote from: "devia"
Female...........................BAD.. (except for me)


That's not quite right devia.
Female.........bad. Devia.........VERY, VERY BAD.
:twisted:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 15, 2006, 02:19 AM
Quote
Yes, and what's more is that you've PROVED it for me. You said I didn't know TB was a woman and I told you were wrong, and all you can do is resort to childish ad hominems. Pathetic.


Not that it matters now - but where was my 'childish ad hominem'? I simply pointed out that your little speech about the MRM not knowing who its allies were was a little strange given TB (a woman) was criticising CM (another woman) - a strange example if you knew TB was indeed a woman. If you consider my words a 'child ad hominem' attack of sorts, I think you're still in the emotional state you admitted to about 4 pages ago.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 15, 2006, 02:21 AM
I actually believe in an ideal world a SAHP (stay at home PARENT) is ideal for children.

BUT, not in today's climate where divorce lawyers punish breadwinners.  In this climate, it's very dangerous for the breadwinner to have a SAH partner.  That simple.  A SAHP is building up 'nectar points' for the divorce courts.  She (most likely, she) can cash them in upon divorce (initiated by herself).  She gets custody ('status quo') and she gets maintainance, and she gets the house.  If SHE was the breadwinner, another story.  This is the hidden reason why a lot of women (not all) don't want to be breadwinner.  Men don't have that choice - not really.  How can a man not earn? Women tend to marry up.   You think his chat-up line is going to be "I want to stay home, and clean, and take care of the kids"  - that's not going to work for her.

Like I say, in an ideal world, a SAHP is the best thing for kids.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 03:00 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
Yet my opinion on this is nothing like that of TB or Galt. I don't think this is a chasm between the childed and the childfree, but something else entirely. I don't know exactly what, but I have a few ideas. And I know better than to make those ideas publicly known.


First off, I'm not solely talking about people with kids. People arguing on the "other side" of this keep shifting it to a stay-at-home MOM, but I'm thinking of the broad sense of a woman (let's say without kids) just staying at home while the husband works.  That situation is a bit tougher to defend, especially in a case where the woman unilaterally makes the decision.  That's presumably the reason for the emphasis by the "other side" on stay-at-home MOM (with kids).

I can absolutely see a parent staying at home with the children before they are in school. Most people today only have one or two kids, though, so that's not a very long period out of life.  There are also many alternatives today.

I know a female accountant who makes a good living by doing tax returns and accounting statements out of her home.  She stays home but works.  I know others who earn quite well by translating - it all runs through the Internet today, and they can easily adjust their schedules by not taking on work when appropriate. Many companies offer "tele-working" via the Internet for jobs that don't require a physical presence. Many web designers and programmers work out of their home.  Lots of things you can do today, but there are also plenty of excuses if you don't want to work at all.

Secondly, I don't really know what the hidden motives are that you are insinuating. My very direct motive is that I want to get across to men that you don't have to accept that. I think many are laboring (literally) under an illusion that may not reflect reality today.  Probably Typhonblue, IMHO and others are seeing the same thing.  That's pretty direct and open - I don't see a hidden motive.

In my case, I've had some pretty nasty experiences with stay-at-home women, and I have probably seen more cases of rotten behavior on their part than other people here have seen.  So in addition to the direct motives of Typhonblue, IMHO and others, I admittedly have the extra motive of loathing women without kids, even with an older child, who stay at home while the man works. I also admittedly attribute the behavior I have seen in some nasty stay-at-home people in an unfair and generalized way to all stay-at-home people.  I realize that, and it's wrong.

It's pretty much that simple.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 03:27 AM
Here's the situation with regard to "attacking" Biscuit Queen and Christiane:

Let's say that we have a discussion about used-car salesmen. I take the position that not all of them are dishonest, but the STRUCTURE may make them more vulnerable to behaving in unethical ways.  For instance, there is pressure on them to make as many sales as they can in a month or they don't survive. They are dealing with a product that will always have small (or big) problems.  There is a conflict between being completely honest about the problems and making your quota for the month (in competition with other peope who may be making their quota by unethical means). There are also obvious conflicts with regard to price.

So then I make the point that if you deal with a used-car salesman, be very careful.  But I make the further point that you DON'T HAVE TO deal with them at all - find an individual seller in the newspaper if you want a used car. Have a mechanic check out the car.  You can probably get the car much cheaper in that way.

So that's just my theoretical opinion.  Someone else could pipe up and say that NO, the structure is not that bad, and point out opposing reasons. Maybe they could point out laws that prevent bad behavior or other issues that I wasn't aware of. Maybe car businesses have to provide warranties and individual people don't. Maybe I'm wrong.  That's the theoretical debate that I'm trying to be involved in.

But then the other style of debate would be for a used-car salesman to pipe up that he's not personally dishonest and I'm a jerk and an asshole and stupid and he hates me for even bringing up the issue.  I'm a misousedcarsalesmanic (kind of like misogynist but for people who are wary of used-car salesmen). Further, I obviously hate all capitalism and free enterprise and may be a communist.

Yeah.  OK.  So he may be right, he may be an honest person. He may personally be a nice guy. I don't really care, because he personally has no effect on the broad system or structure. I'm not targeting him personally.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 04:11 AM
All I can say is wow.  WTF happened?

Without getting into the finger poiting game, I think we have a problem here.

So far three allies, females, have been driven from this site That I am aware of).  Why?  Because some folks feel that bordering on the edge of personal attacks is somehow fun and the best way to make your point.

I am no angel, that is for sure.  I have been a little (or a lot) bit of a smart ass and mean spirited in my posts on occasion as well.  But daym!

Statements like all boys are the initators of sexual advances of older women/boys cannot be raped.  All SAHMs are leaches.....  WTF?  I thought we were trying to change societies opinions.... Call atttention to the injustices....not reinforce them.

Truly sad.

TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 04:15 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Devia we are having enough difficulties on this thread without you trying to stir up more trouble.  Discuss the topic.


I brought up Madame Curie, Dr. Evil.


Typhon - I was referring to Devia's attempt to tattle and get others in trouble on this thread.  Thread drift was not my concern.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 04:19 AM
Devia - You have been told before that Typhon's screen name is Typhon not Typhoon.  You seem to do that as a way to needle and irritate.  If you continue I will allow others to call you Deviant, Devious, and other more colorful and less flattering variations.

Quote
Your not logical typhoon.

You've stated that both working and stay at homes moms are inherently a drain on their husbands.
There is a 15% wage difference between working men and women. hence your arguement lacks logic.

A couple of questions.

Does your husband make more then you do?
When you get pregnant and are unable to work how will you not be a leech on your husband?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 04:23 AM
Al - Please point out where anyone has broken the rules here and made personal attacks.  What I see is people reacting emotionally to a very charged issue.  This is very different from someone being "driven" away.  It looks to me as if you are exagerating.  Give us some quotes and examples from this thread.  

Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
All I can say is wow.  WTF happened?

Without getting into the finger poiting game, I think we have a problem here.

So far three allies, females, have been driven from this site That I am aware of).  Why?  Because some folks feel that bordering on the edge of personal attacks is somehow fun and the best way to make your point.

I am no angel, that is for sure.  I have been a little (or a lot) bit of a smart ass and mean spirited in my posts on occasion as well.  But daym!

Statements like all boys are the initators of sexual advances of older women/boys cannot be raped.  All SAHMs are leaches.....  WTF?  I thought we were trying to change societies opinions.... Call atttention to the injustices....not reinforce them.

Truly sad.

TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 04:37 AM
I said "borderline" for a reason E.  I just think heated is fine, but sometimes posts like this:

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"
As always, I love you dearly.   Yes, target an insulted audience with half a brain, and you might get results.   How to go about that, I'm not an expert, but it can't be rocket science.  

The feminist movement has been ridiculing and insulting the SAHM segment of the female population for 20 years.   We're so done with them.   Woo us.   We love men.    We will come to you....       8)


Of course you love men. Without them you would be working.


Do nothing but cause reactionary responses and flames the fire so to speak.

Know-what-ah-mean-Vern?

TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 05:12 AM
Al - What you said was that three people had been driven away from this site.  I think that is a misrepresentation and an exageration.  

Typhon's statement was not without fault but it didn't break any rules here and was not a personal attack.  What it did was make her point which was that men have been used as slaves and without the slaves all adult women would be working.  Christiane was bluntly claiming that SAHM's loved men and implying that they would come running to the defense of men's issues if they were only "woo'ed."  Both are entitled to their opinions.  Neither is doing anything wrong. This issue carries a big emotional payload Please don"t fan the fire


Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
I said "borderline" for a reason E.  I just think heated is fine, but sometimes posts like this:

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"
As always, I love you dearly.   Yes, target an insulted audience with half a brain, and you might get results.   How to go about that, I'm not an expert, but it can't be rocket science.  

The feminist movement has been ridiculing and insulting the SAHM segment of the female population for 20 years.   We're so done with them.   Woo us.   We love men.    We will come to you....       8)


Of course you love men. Without them you would be working.


Do nothing but cause reactionary responses and flames the fire so to speak.

Know-what-ah-mean-Vern?

TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 05:57 AM
Granted, the following is a huge exageration but just read it through and take it for what it is worth.  

Imagine a meeting of slaves prior to the Civil War who are gathered to try and figure out what to do about their plight.  Slave owners are allowed to be a part of these discussions and one of them is upset and says that slave owners are not really so bad, he gives his slaves every other weekend off, D* ST plus SF, 1000 count sheets etc etc.  The slaves try and tell this man that he may very well do all of those things and that is a good and loving thing but this doesn't have anything to do with the CONCEPT of slavery as inherently evil.  

As they are discussing this another slave owner joins their group and tells them that slave owners really do love slaves and they only need to woo them to get them to be on their side.  One of the slaves fires back that of course they love them, without the slaves THEY, the slave owners, would be doing the work.

We are talking about concepts and ideas here folks.  We are not pointing fingers at individuals.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 15, 2006, 06:03 AM
Dr E. I have been driven away. I came back only because CM pm's me and asked me for some help, and I will be gone in a few more posts.  Christiane has been pushed away, she has even gone so far as to not be involved in any MRA activities, because she cannot stand behind the philosophy that two of your members insist is MRM. CM is about ready to bolt, Alicia did the same. Why? Because two of your members have learned how to just skim under the radar while being extremely hostile and unrelenting.

You may not see it. You may not want to see it. But it happened. I refused to hear how I was a leach any longer, on every third thread. If I say most jews are a bunch of lazy, irresponsible idiots, then a jewish man tried to argue against that, would you allow a comment like"I wasn't attacking you, you don't have to justify your personal choices." No, you woul dtell them that broad generalizations are not allowed.

SAHMs are not above reproach. Argue it if you will. But do not then turn around when I do argue it and tell me I am getting defensive and I don't need to explain, it wasn't about me.


When you make bold statements about a group, you include all members of that group. It is not my job to defind myself, it is their job to make a statement which does not include me.

Typhon said
Quote
What is the difference between a woman coming on here and declaring herself a homemaker or declaring herself a feminist?


Statements like these are openly hostile, and indeed personal attacks to those who view feminism as an insult. I would have though you, Dr E, of all people, would not be so blind to one person.


The two have learned how not to get warned. That does not mean they are not hostile. They are singlehandedly chasing off good people from your board, Dr E. I am not the only one tired of their animosity towards less radical MRAs. I am just one of those who finally had enough. Ironically all of whom seem to be women. You have a degree in psychology, what does that tell you?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 15, 2006, 06:33 AM
I look at SAHping as a division of labor. Not all labor in the home is meant to bring in money.

You have

earning money
cleaning
childcare
maintainance on house
improvements on house
maintainance on cars
care of pets if any
lawn and garden care
cooking
grocery shopping
basic clothing shopping

These are a few.

You could have both people working different shifts, and both people contributing to all of the above and not have to pay anyone to do these things. You would have little time to relax, but it could be done.

You could pay someone else to come in and do all of these and have both parents working simply to pay others to do all the tasks.

You could do some tasks yourself, pay others to do the rest.

You could delegate one person to do all of the tasks other than earn money, and the other person earns the money.

All of these are simply ways of delegating the tasks needed to be done in a household.

There are also many different situations with SAHPs. Some may work from home. Some may have the SAHP who lacks an education, the other has a great, safe, fulfilling job and can easily support a family.  You may have one who has a low paying job and then must get two jobs to support the family. You may have one who has a high earning but dangerous job. You may have a wife who chooses to quit a good job, or a couple who choose together that having one parent home is what is best, or a man who wishes to have his wife stay home. There are so many, many different scenarios that it is illogical to claim you can above the board prove that it is unfair to have a SAHP.  

While there is certainly drudgery in being home, there is also good parts. I was able to do a 7 mile hike yesterday with our 10 year old, I can volunteer at the school. I do not think being at home is mind numbing horror; it can be- but you can also make it interesting. I loved having the kids home before they went to school. I have issues now because they are in school, but I still cannot work for many reasons. This is why I started training dogs at my home-I found work which could accomodate the kid's schedules. Each family is different.  

The fact is many, many jobs are in the service sector. This means people are being paid not for providing real goods, but for providing services. Waitresses, cleaners, laundromats, daycare providers, kennels, lawn services, mechanics, none of these 'produce' anything, yet they are indeed paying jobs. It is the time spent and the job done, not the actual product produced, which is valuable.


Typhon's idea that a SAHP is providing nothing is inaccurate, because he or she is providing something. It isn't material goods, it is services. Having the working parent not have to think about what to do with the kids everytime there is a field trip, or sick day, or snow day, or holiday, or school project, or summer vacation etc, is indeed a service. Not having to run to the store after work to search for school project supplies, or a dress outfit for band, or new sneakers because they got ruined is a plus. Ironically, my own husband came on here himself years ago to say this, and he was dismissed as 'whipped.'

You could certainly argue that to many the service is not worth the price. You could argue that only women get to choose that division of labor and that is unfair. But to make broad statements that housewives are contributing nothing is innacurate.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 15, 2006, 06:42 AM
Slavery as an analogy to SAHPs is illogical. As Galt so frequently says, he can CHOOSE not to have a SAHW. He can CHOOSE not to get married.

Slavery is illogical because it was one person using others for personal gain. While SOME SAHMs may fall into this catagory, the vast majority I have met chose to stay home for the benifit of the kids with agreement from the husbands before the kids were concieved, and most went back or are planning on going back to work once their day to day responsibilities allow. Most SAHM I know truly love thier husbands, and do not see them as merely a meal ticket. I am sure there are some out there, but human nature tells me they are not the rule.

Making an analogy to slavery is also making an analogy to women and slaveholders. THAT is fairly insulting to women.

Most women are unaware of these issues. They do not see that men have little choices, in fact they have been told the opposite. I personally think that while ignorance is no excuse for truly bad behavior, not seeing that men have few choices is not the same as intentionally buying another human to use as cattle.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 07:26 AM
BQ - I am truly sorry to hear that you feel you were "driven" out of SYG.  That is not the way I saw things but would be open to hearing feedback if you think I have missed something.

You seem to think that Typhon and Galt are the culprits here.  I have a question for you.  What would you have done differently in this thread?  You seem to acknowledge that under the present rules no poster has made much of an infraction.  Are you suggesting that more rules need to be added?  If so, what would you suggest?

Boards such as this one can be rough and tumble places.  Feelings get hurt.  Some folks openly don't like some other folks.  Could it be that you felt disliked and this was hard for you to deal with?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 15, 2006, 07:29 AM
The further this debacle continues the more guilty I'm feeling. It was Christiane's response to a post of mine which seems to have started all this.

I have to say that I was disappointed with TB's response at that time and while I envy TB's obvious intellect and knowledge I did think it was unnecessarily sharp.

It makes me so sad to see obvious supporters like CM, Christiane and BQ constantly backtracking as though they have to justify themselves every step of the way. They shouldn't have to do that.

One of the things that always, notwithstanding my long term support for feminism, annoyed me was their marginalising of men as in "you wouldn't understand...you're a man...your part of the problem/patriarchy". Isn't that what's happenning here with regard to some members.

Sure some women give their partners no chioce but some men do this too. Maybe it's worthy of criticism. But we are all creatures of the cuture we live in. What happened a hundred years ago is important in the lessons we can learn but none here lived in, or were formed by, that world.

Most of us have grown up in a time when the stay at home mum was the norm. Most families do things this way without even thinking about it. They don't have the particular sensitivities that lead us all to being members here. I still believe that many SAHMs are potential allies and that highlighting feminism's hatred for them is a potential lever to get their attention. I don't care what their reasons for any support may originally be. All I see is a common enemy.

Sorry to all for this disjointed stream of consciousness but I've seen enough discord and abuse and resentment in my life already.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: neonsamurai on Jun 15, 2006, 08:10 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
Here's another quote -- this one from neonsamuri -- that warrants closer scrutiny:

Quote from: "neonsamurai"
I think you'd be swimming against the tide trying to convince SAHM's that the MRM is worthy of their time and effort. In the UK they are bombarded with daytime TV which is aimed solely at them and magazines like Ok! Now! Hello! Top Sante etc.

The majority of this media entertainment is just re-enforcing how hard it is to be a SAHM (just ask Oprah) and justifying their existence. Any program that tried to tell them how easy they have it, or that their husbands are working themselves to death or that they need to give more TLC to their significant others wouldn't be liked. Our media thrive on the victimhood of women because that's what gets the viewers to watch.


Stop a moment and think as to how offensive and condescending this statement is. It implies that no SAHM could be capable of critical thinking. Yes, the media is a powerful influence no doubt about that. And certainly it stands to reason that a significant number of SAHM's -- those who are because of limited education and job skills -- might buy into this, but many more do not. Many SAHM's are bright, women capable of thinking outside the box, so to speak and because they think independently, they don't buy this bullshit hook line and sinker like so many others might.


Dammnit! The one time one of my offensive and condescending posts gets quoted, by the time I've read it the conversation has already moved on  :x

The implication of my post was that we'd have our work cut out for us, like trying to get people to eat fruit rather than McDonalds. You have extraoplated what I've said to mean something it doesn't, simply because I've said "I think you'd be swimming against the tide trying to convince SAHM's that the MRM is worthy of their time and effort", rather than using the cop out 'most' in the correct part of the sentence.

You're saying that I don't believe women capable of change, whereas I was arguing 'why would they want to listen?'
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 15, 2006, 08:40 AM
Dr E, I do not think Typhon does not break rules, I think she has learned to do so under your radar. She is nothing if not clever.

I do think several women have been driven out of here. Yes, we chose to leave, but so do cattle. They choose when they have had enough sharp blows and it is just easier to go. I made my choice under the circumstances that were here, and if it were not for two members I would still be here. It is my choice, but they are not without culpability. CM and Alicia have said as much, and now Christiane. Seems like a pretty clear path to me.  4 out of what, maybe 6 or 7? Not a very good record.


This thread would not exist if the point of SAHPs were handled as an issue and not a personality disorder. I for one could certainly have a discussion about it if I were not then told to stop justifying myself, as a form of negating my arguement.

If I were to be mod,  I would have warned TB for the remark about Christiane only loving men because they make her money. That was a personal attack. I would have also cautioned that directly equating SAHMs with feminists as a direct reply to an MRA who is a SAHM comes pretty darn close to a personal attack. CM would have been warned for her attack on TB, which I think was done. I would have reminded Galt, as you finally did, that he is making broad generalizations based on a few cases. I would do so EVERY time he makes a housewives are leaches speech. After a while, a warning may be in order, since you do not have time to babysit him.  

I am not mod, however, and I have always respected that you do the best you can, which usually is a great job. The blind spot you have for these two is a human frailty; I am sure if I were mod I would have my own.

I am not here to criticise you, only to support those who are making the point that indeed the actions of a few are directing the course of the whole board. In the end it is your board, and you have to make the calls the way you see fit.

Neon, you have a very good point. People who are home during the day are indeed in assaulted with daytime TV (if they choose to have it and watch it). That is poison. I could go on a long rant about how daytime TV, and now evening as well, skews people's perceptions of reality, gives them unrealistic expectations, and feeds into the victim and divorce culture.  AMEN brother.

I also know that most women, if presented in a gentle and non-threatening way with information, will think about it. I think that SAHPs could be a real force to be reckoned with in the MRM. I have turned a die-hard feminist SAHM into a devout follower of Glenn Sacks. It can be done.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 15, 2006, 08:52 AM
Welcome back BQ. Honoured MRA and teller of truth. I hope it isn't a fleeting visit. You make positive, intelligent arguements, especially on this issue. I would add that a SAHM, or even a SAHD, NEED NOT be a vegetable, NEED NOT have their mind atrophy. Children NEED a home and a parent in it. Preferably two. Both can contribute what is necessary.

As for the relative disadvantages that men can often percieve, financial, distance from the hearth, enjoyment of the fruits on an ongoing basis, these are made manifest by the squawks and demeanments of feminists. Most strong, good men have shouldered their responsibilty for building and making a safe, healthy family along with strong good women. Kindness, love, tolerance, sharing, caring, building, complementing. It is the harridan voices of femonazis who have denigrated the contribution of both men and women. Voices of hatred, destruction, anti-life, using new-speak phrases that would make Stalin blush and Goebbels envious. They trail legislators like the dust behind a dirty ice-ball comet.

That there are voices here on this board that verge toward supporting the femonazi vituperativeness is something we must guard against, speak up about and counter.

We have a host of different backgrounds and life experiences here. Some knaves lurk. Some are unappreciative of fact and breadth. Some are intolerant in an undifferentiated way. Discrimination is a good word which we need to wrest back from the negativity it has been given. We need to direct our intolerance of and to untruth and disrespect, and choose our enemies carefully, not squabble and score points of one another. Surely there are enough enemies to choose from without turning on ourselves.

As for the ladies here 'sniping' as some allude, communication skills are not their sole preserve. We can all do with lifting our game.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: realman on Jun 15, 2006, 09:03 AM
Well put BQ, I think I speak for many here when I say we'd like you to stick around.

Undoubtedly it is hard to be a female and participate in this place... and it is also hard to separate out the "thinking SAHMs" from the rest. Or to seprate out the reasonable women from the ordinary avergae women who think they're reasonable yet side with feminists every time or the feminists themselves.

I think the real issue is that there are so many shades of grey between the extremes of black and white, that much of it all blends together. Consider that you can have three women, one is a SAHM who condemns feminsim completely, one is a SAHM who embraces feminism, one is a "career woman" who proclaims herself a feminist and condemns SAHMs, and one is a woman with no kids who says she's not a feminist then goes around all day making "all men are sex-crazed pigs" comments. Makes it pretty hard for everyone to target the specific group they are referring to every time, so you get a lot of "women this", "feminists that", "SAHMs" the other thing comments because nobody has the time to write a paragraph describing exactly who they are referring to every time. Plus in many cases it does seem a generalization does apply to the majority of the group referred to. Dr. E I think does a pretty commendable job, but I can also see that sometimes a comment does slip under the radar.

I think we all need to try to clairfy when we can, we all need to avoid making things TOO personal, and we also all need to learn to "agree to disagree" at times.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 09:32 AM
BQ said:

Quote
f I were to be mod, I would have warned TB for the remark about Christiane only loving men because they make her money. That was a personal attack. I would have also cautioned that directly equating SAHMs with feminists as a direct reply to an MRA who is a SAHM comes pretty darn close to a personal attack. CM would have been warned for her attack on TB, which I think was done. I would have reminded Galt, as you finally did, that he is making broad generalizations based on a few cases. I would do so EVERY time he makes a housewives are leaches speech. After a while, a warning may be in order, since you do not have time to babysit him.


We have different takes on this as could be expected.  I don't see Typhons remark that "Of course you love men. Without them you would be working" as a personal attack.  She didn't say "Hey asshole, go frick yourself."  That would be a personal attack.  The statement in my mind was also not even pointed at Christiane but directed at the generic "You."  It was a statement geared to make a point not to demean or insult a poster.  That's the way I took it.  Typhon has a unique and razor sharp manner of responding sometimes that is less than sweet.  In my mind it is not even close to being a personal attack.  She is simply disagreeing strongly.  Should we warn people for disagreeing too strongly?  I don't think so.  I doubt you would complain if you and Typhon were under the same ideological banner.  

Equated a SAHM with a feminist?  That's simply a way of thinking.  If someone disagrees they can offer why it is an off the wall statement but again it is not a personal attack.  Should we warn someone for their ideas?  I don't think so.

Galt speaks often about his feelings about the inequities of a marital situation where the man is expected to work and the woman gets a pass and stays home.  I think if you look closely you will see that he qualifies this and understands the need for a parent to be at home when kids are  younger and his wrath is largely saved for situations where the woman is not busy with childcare but is doing next to nothing while the man works his butt off.  I agree with his irritation with this.

It seems that you are suggesting BQ that we start to censor ideology and I don't want to get into that if we can avoid it.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 09:45 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
It is not my job to defind myself, it is their job to make a statement which does not include me.


Really?  

Quote
Typhon said
Quote
What is the difference between a woman coming on here and declaring herself a homemaker or declaring herself a feminist?


Statements like these are openly hostile, and indeed personal attacks to those who view feminism as an insult. I would have though you, Dr E, of all people, would not be so blind to one person.


When I ask a question, I ask it to get an answer.

What is the difference between a homemaker and a feminist?

No matter how affectionate a homemaker is, there is always the *expectation* that her man must provide for her. An entitlement given to her by men.

Quote
The two have learned how not to get warned. That does not mean they are not hostile. They are singlehandedly chasing off good people from your board, Dr E. I am not the only one tired of their animosity towards less radical MRAs. I am just one of those who finally had enough. Ironically all of whom seem to be women. You have a degree in psychology, what does that tell you?


That, maybe, certain people are being told things they don't want to hear?

To address your other post that you made below.

Once again, I'll take you through the logic.

At the turn of the century a woman staying home worked 60-80 hours a week. Now she works about 4 hours a day. That's 28 hours a week. (This is based on a housework study.) This also doesn't include the amount that women ask men to do when they come home from their "vacation", ie. work.

She has gained a 50% decrease in her workload (which was always somewhat less stressful then the man's because it was self directed.) This means that homemakers are dealing with considerable idle time.

I don't think you ever answered my question concerning the idle time you and your husband have. You were saying idle time is a problem for *homemakers* so I assume you aren't refering to workers in that statement.  This idle time you are refering to is exactly what I am getting at.

You have more idle time(your own statement) then someone who goes in to work an whose activities are monitored. Regardless of how much of a problem you think this idle time is, you have it. (Other people would regard it as a benefit.)

You can say you do XYZ services, but that doesn't change the fact that you admitted you have idle time during the day. Other, *male* Stay-at-homes have also admitted they have had idle time during the day too.

Once again, the existance of this idle time is what Galt and I are refering to. I think it confers considerable benefit to homemakers. They can use it to pursue relaxation, entertainment, hobbies, etc. (Or, if they were men, inventions, scientific and mathematical research.) They can use it in whatever way they see fit. This idle time (plus being able to arrange your own schedule and be your own boss) is the reason why home-maker is a uniquely privilaged position.

Now, if the number of men who got to be home-makers was equal to the number of men who wanted to be... there wouldn't be a problem.

To use an analogy... let's say there's a society of buggy operators. Someone has to drive the buggy and someone has to pull it. At birth a white buggy operator is assigned a black operator and vice versa.

Driving the buggy is the better job but it has to be done. Pulling it is the worse job, but likewise it has to be done.

The problem comes when a "fairness inspector" notices that most of the buggies are being pulled by black people and being driven by white. If it were equal(or roughly equal) we could presume random chance, but because it isn't there is some sort of selection preasure happening.  

This selection preassure is the problem.

The selection preassure that allows women to become home-makers is the same selection preassure that makes women listened to over men, the same selection preassure that allowed feminism to flourish, the same selection preassure that puts mentally disabled men on the streets, the same selection preassure that causes men to take jobs that kill, maim and slowly sicken them with stress, in fact it's the same selection preassure behind all the concrete problems men face, including their lack of representation in the political and consumer process.

Galt and I, I suppose, have been going about this the wrong way. We've been pointing to the fact that buggy drivers have the easier and more prefered job to try and illustrate the fact that this selection preassure in white people's favor exists. The white buggy drivers have, in turn, remarked that they really *are* working hard and that their job is necessary. (Interestingly BLACK buggy drivers say that the job is easier and preferable.)

I'm not sure if the desire to argue the fact that the driver position is better is a way to deflect attention from the issue of discrimination against black buggy operators or simply a matter of social conditioning. That's a soul-searching question for the individual white buggy driver to consider.

Now, lets say these black buggy operators come together to discuss the fact that they experience this negative selection preassure in their life (in other aspects *besides* buggy operation as well, no doubt.) And a white *driver* comes in and says hes all for black emancipation.

How should they respond to him?

Now to address Devia.

The wage gap? I'm going to cite one statistic. In second world economies (economies in the same countries that tend to be more patriarchal then our own) the wage gap is less. The difference? Women in these economies cannot take as much time off work as women in first world economies. The wage gap is a result of buggy driver entitlement(being able to quit work or take long streaches of time off), not oppression.

Finally... you know what's funny about you trying to engage my life to prove your points... you don't even know if I'm a home-maker or not. Could be... after all I'm posting this in the morning on a weekday during regular business hours.

And as for being pregnant and unable to work... Er? Huh? I didn't realize pregnancy impeded one's ability to type or think. As for childcare... is there some reason my husband couldn't do it?

And, no, he doesn't make more then me.

One final point...

C spoke for the group "homemakers" when she said "we love men". I also spoke for the group of homemakers when I said "because they pay your way."

No one is above criticism. Or above being prodded out of complacency. No group of women in our society does not have the obligation, right now, to look at their lives and see how this selection preassure I mentioned before benefits them.

As human beings(women) we have the obligation to understand why we get the entitlements and boons we do, to examine their cause and try to change it, and how to use them to benefit individuals (men) who don't get them.

"Loving" men for what they do for us isn't enough. We must love men for what we can do for them.

A note... as I said before, unless I'm somehow a freak, I battle with the same attitudes that I talk about on here. It's how I know them so well. The expectation that a man must provide for me, the expectation of entitlement. I've caught myself (and my husband has) in all of these.

Either I'm the only woman alive whose fallen prey to the "easy out" of expecting a man to provide for her, or I'm just the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 15, 2006, 09:56 AM
Quote from: "realman"
Well put BQ, I think I speak for many here when I say we'd like you to stick around.

Undoubtedly it is hard to be a female and participate in this place... and it is also hard to separate out the "thinking SAHMs" from the rest. Or to seprate out the reasonable women from the ordinary avergae women who think they're reasonable yet side with feminists every time or the feminists themselves.

I think the real issue is that there are so many shades of grey between the extremes of black and white, that much of it all blends together. Consider that you can have three women, one is a SAHM who condemns feminsim completely, one is a SAHM who embraces feminism, one is a "career woman" who proclaims herself a feminist and condemns SAHMs, and one is a woman with no kids who says she's not a feminist then goes around all day making "all men are sex-crazed pigs" comments. Makes it pretty hard for everyone to target the specific group they are referring to every time, so you get a lot of "women this", "feminists that", "SAHMs" the other thing comments because nobody has the time to write a paragraph describing exactly who they are referring to every time. Plus in many cases it does seem a generalization does apply to the majority of the group referred to. Dr. E I think does a pretty commendable job, but I can also see that sometimes a comment does slip under the radar.

I think we all need to try to clairfy when we can, we all need to avoid making things TOO personal, and we also all need to learn to "agree to disagree" at times.


realman sums up nicely what I was thinking.  

I do hope that The BQ is back for good and that CM and Christiane decide to stay  (Christiane, I'm sorry if I came across as excessively harsh in my comments and/or responses to posts).

To me, it's all about choice.  Husbands and wives should be free to chose whatever living arrangement works for them without interference from feminazis and other Nanny-statists.  For example, if the SAHP is bored, the kids are in trouble at school or elsewhere, etc., then the arrangement is not working for them and they need to get with their spouse and fix the problem among themselves without outside interference.  We shouldn't have and we don't need feminzazis like Hirshman telling SAHMs that they don't to go out and work they're parasites, or for that matter having traditionalists telling them they have to stay home and take care of the kids.  I understand that the so-called "family" court makes the latter option very risky for men these days, but since the "family" courst is a major part of the Nanny State IMO we need to reign-in that abomination - bigtime - if we stand a prayer of remaining a viable culture.  But as I said before, feminazis are responsible for misanthropes like Hirshman and abominations like the "family" court and many other Nanny State elements.  Feminists are nothing short of fascists when it comes to dictating their idea of 'healthy' family structures.

Thus, there's the answer to reigning-in the whole Nanny State monster and restoring individual choice to our lives:  Get feminists the fuck out of our lives and greater society.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 10:06 AM
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
We shouldn't have and we don't need feminzazis like Hirshman telling SAHMs that they don't to go out and work they're parasites, or for that matter having traditionalists telling them they have to stay home and take care of the kids.


OMG! Mr. Bad just called me a feminazi!

Dr. Eeeeeevil! Help!
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: AliciaGoMavs on Jun 15, 2006, 10:09 AM
Wow.  Very interesting.  

I check this site from time to time, but I can't stay here for extended periods of time, because it is not long before some thread is posted that says "Is rape all that bad?" or something else equally stupid.  

Don't get me wrong, I like most of you guys, but imagine how welcome any of you fellas would feel at a NOW convention, and you get an idea on how it feels to be a woman here for any extended period of time.  

I still say as I've said all along, that the hateful, mysogynistic members among your group are going to be the death of the MRM just as the hateful, misandrystic members killed feminism.  But helping you see that is not my responsibility to bear, it is yours.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 15, 2006, 10:11 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"

One final point...

C spoke for the group "homemakers" when she said "we love men". I also spoke for the group of homemakers when I said "because they pay your way."

No one is above criticism. Or above being prodded out of complacency. No group of women in our society does not have the obligation, right now, to look at their lives and see how this selection preassure I mentioned before benefits them.

As human beings(women) we have the obligation to understand why we get the entitlements and boons we do, to examine their cause and try to change it, and how to use them to benefit individuals (men) who don't get them.

"Loving" men for what they do for us isn't enough. We must love men for what we can do for them.

A note... as I said before, unless I'm somehow a freak, I battle with the same attitudes that I talk about on here. It's how I know them so well. The expectation that a man must provide for me, the expectation of entitlement. I've caught myself (and my husband has) in all of these.

Either I'm the only woman alive whose fallen prey to the "easy out" of expecting a man to provide for her, or I'm just the tip of the iceberg.


typhon, not only does your logic and intellect leave me in awe, I find the courage you show vis-a-vis self-reflection inspiring.  Makes me proud to have your acquaitance here at SYG.

This is not to say that I don't appreciate the other women who chose to come here and help me understand the issues, e.g., BQ, CM, Christiane, Devia, et al.   It's just that typhonblue elucidates perspective and  arguments that I for all practical purposes never hear from other women.  And that is beyond refreshing, at least for me.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 15, 2006, 10:13 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
We shouldn't have and we don't need feminzazis like Hirshman telling SAHMs that they don't to go out and work they're parasites, or for that matter having traditionalists telling them they have to stay home and take care of the kids.


OMG! Mr. Bad just called me a feminazi!

Dr. Eeeeeevil! Help!


Take that wench!...    ;)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: GregA on Jun 15, 2006, 10:41 AM
Quote from: "AliciaGoMavs"
Wow.  Very interesting.  

I check this site from time to time, but I can't stay here for extended periods of time, because it is not long before some thread is posted that says "Is rape all that bad?" or something else equally stupid.  

Don't get me wrong, I like most of you guys, but imagine how welcome any of you fellas would feel at a NOW convention, and you get an idea on how it feels to be a woman here for any extended period of time.  

I still say as I've said all along, that the hateful, mysogynistic members among your group are going to be the death of the MRM just as the hateful, misandrystic members killed feminism.  But helping you see that is not my responsibility to bear, it is yours.


Those sorts of feeling are perfectly normal when peoples beliefs are being challenged.  

However, I suspect what women feel here is more analagous to what men experience every day of their lives rather than at a NOW convention, because last I checked they didn't even let men into those.

Why just today I was dropping my kids off at 'safety city' a pre-school age safety program.  The clutch of women who met me at the door, stopped talking as I approached, then, I kid you not I heard one of them say "I wonder who wears the pants in their family?" (the answer is we both wear the pants btw) as I walked past them.

As far as I can tell this is the experience of every man who challenges our matriarichal society.  Those glass ceilings have already been broken for women.  As far as I can tell, the hatred of men is so internalized by most women, that they have to be shaken to their senses to even begin to acknowledge that it is occuring.

Go read Hugoboy today.  Follow the links he has in his article about pete.  There is an overwhelming case of women thinking they are entitled to tell men how to act and think.  My message to pete would be, you deserve better than these feminist women.  You deserve a woman who will accept you as you are, there is nothing at all wrong with men feeling sexual lust, even in the most purient ways.  You dont owe the girls anything but being honest about who you are.  Anyhow, the girls in the womens studies class are the ones that tell you they are a lesbian, just to fuck with you, when you break up.  You don't need that in your life.

I once read a sig on slashdot it was "I see stupid people, they are everywhere, and the worst part is they don't even know they are stupid".  When I read the blog posts that hugo is linking,I have to think.  Don't these kids watch the daily show?  Why can't they see the irony of what they say?  It seems there is a terminal case of hubris deficit in our society.

My final message would be to Hugo.  Whats with the retro feminism?  I thought feminism moved on from the falicy that men and women are exactly equal no matter what anyone says about 20 years ago?  For being a tenured professor, you sure do have a knack for making shit up as you go along.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: realman on Jun 15, 2006, 10:43 AM
"'Loving' men for what they do for us isn't enough. We must love men for what we can do for them." - typhonblue

I wonder how many women have ever thought or said that before, ever. I'm sure not more than a handful, because if they had there would be no NEED for "Men's Rights Activism" or anything of the sort...

The sad part is that it is almsot shocking to hear a woman talking about loving a man in ways that sound like mutual, real... love. Not romantic fantasy, self-serving desires, ticking biological clocks, or emotional crutches... but genuine love. Wow.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: BaltimoreMan on Jun 15, 2006, 10:46 AM
Quote from: "AliciaGoMavs"
Wow.  Very interesting.  

I check this site from time to time, but I can't stay here for extended periods of time, because it is not long before some thread is posted that says "Is rape all that bad?" or something else equally stupid.  

Don't get me wrong, I like most of you guys, but imagine how welcome any of you fellas would feel at a NOW convention, and you get an idea on how it feels to be a woman here for any extended period of time.  

I still say as I've said all along, that the hateful, mysogynistic members among your group are going to be the death of the MRM just as the hateful, misandrystic members killed feminism.  But helping you see that is not my responsibility to bear, it is yours.


"hateful misandrystic members" killed feminism? Then why do we have VAWA, why does NOW still have a special place among Democrats in congress, why are women's studies programs proliferating worldwide, and why did Dworkin and McKinnon help write so many of our "sexual harrasment" laws?


The last time you gave advice you came off as arrogant and because of the tone you adopted (or it was assumed you had adapted) you got nowhere in your efforts. I see you haven't learned from that mistake.


I'd also love you to list some current posting ( by that I mean posters here who've posted over the last six months)  members that you think are misogynistic, but quite frankly I don't think you have the courage to do so. I've been reading this forum for several years now, and while I have seen individual statements from posters that have crossed the line into prejudice I've seen very few that have crossed the line into misogyny. Those members aren't here now to my knowledge.

Or perhaps me and you define misogyny somewhat differently. In any case, I sure hope disagreeing with you doesn't give you the vapors. I'd like some specifics into how Dr E should moderate; at least BQ (whom I've always greatly admired and respected ) is game, how about you?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 10:51 AM
Quote from: "AliciaGoMavs"
Don't get me wrong, I like most of you guys, but imagine how welcome any of you fellas would feel at a NOW convention, and you get an idea on how it feels to be a woman here for any extended period of time.


I don't have a problem here.

I mean guys *have* picked on me in the past. Mr. Bad just called me a femonazi. ;)

But, seriously, I realize that if a guy picks on me because I'm a woman, it's just one man's opinion and that doesn't affect the essential truth of the men's rights issue.

I don't expect to be treated well as a prerequisite to believing that men in the west deserve better then what they're getting now. (Or that women in the east deserve likewise, etc. etc.) The right thing to do is the right thing to do, and often has nothing to do with what's easy or comfortable.

Something that *does* bug me is that I always end up arguing with women. I'd rather these arguments feel less like some sort of female turf war. :S

It was more fun to argue with Angry Harry that one time. And I doubt he even remembers it much less holds a grudge. :D
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 15, 2006, 10:55 AM
Typhon, if I had full charge of my schedule I would be working. I would like to be working. The point I was trying to make, and you conveniently ignore each time I make it, is that am on call, 24/7 (I meaning many SAHPs).  That means that while can make my plans and plan my day or night, if anything happens, (a child gets sick, school is cancelled, a delivery is made) I am the one who changes my plans. Even when those plans are making money.

Also, idle time is not something everyone searches for. Ever wonder why depression is so common after retirement? Have you ever visited a nursing home? Have a parent that after working 31 years now sits in his house restless and depressed, hopeing the golf course will call to say they need him to work extra hours?  Idleness in limits is a gift, idleness in excess is not. And when you choose to deal with the lack of structure so that you can be there for your kids? That is making a parenting decision for others rather than for yourself. I would have gotten through vet school and be working full time if I did what I want rather than what my kids and husband needed.

I think several people here have noted that there are definate cons to staying at home with kids. Again, you fail to recognize this.

No one here has said that being at home is harder, or worse than working as a sole income earner.  You seem to not be able to see grey. Yes, there is great sacrifice and work that comes with being a sole bread winner. There is also satisfaction and rewards which come from being a sole bread winner.

There is likewise pros and cons to being an at home parent.

Your analogy is flawed above. Racial segrigation is not the issue here.  Bringing it in only creates emotional connotations which are irrelevant to the discussion. You also have created a hypothetical situation, so it is again not appliciable.  No one is 'assigning' anything. Any man can choose to not have a wife and kids, or can choose to keep looking until he finds a woman who is willing to work while he stays home. No one said it would be easy, but it is not against the law. That most men do not think to look is not the fault of SAHMs. It is an issue which needs to be addressed, but not one that needs to be blamed.


You could go one further if you choose to have your analogy-there is the puller and the person walking behind with a shovel picking up turds. The person pulling is getting paid, and the person shoveling is not. The person who picks up the  turds lives off the puller. Pulling is a harder job physically, but picking up turds isn't exactly fun either, and comes with its own unpleasantness.  I guess the driver would be those whose parents could afford a nifty education for them.  

I do not really buy that analogy, I was just trying to make the point that hypothetical analogies can say anything, really, without saying anything.


Women at the turn of the century could have gone to college and worked, most didn't, and in your mind that was a flaw of women. Now men choose not to stay home, and it is still a flaw of women. That makes no sense. In my mind, at the turn of the century most women were discouraged from working, in the same way men today are discouraged from staying home.


Quote
And a white *driver* comes in and says hes all for black emancipation.

How should they respond to him?


By saying thanks and accepting the help. Knowing that giving up the drivers position is not going to help anyone, but being in that position could lend the movement some real credability with other drivers.
If he was just talking big then discriminating, they should tell him to bugger off, but if he is offering real help? They would be fools to turn it away.

This movement cannot afford to throw away a huge base of support because *2* people are obsessed with disowning them.

Dr E, of course we will disagree. I cannot believe that you honestly think there was no venom in TB's comments. I really cannot believe it. I am sorry, but her comments were nasty. You can say they technically did not break a rule because of wording, but the outcome is the same-a verbal bitchslap.

This is why when I am done with this thread I will not stay.   It is not up to me to change the board, it is up to me whether I have to deal with it or not.

Sir Percy, realman, I really wish I could stay. When I am up at night fuming because of one thread after months of being gone, this tells me I am making the right choice to go. I miss you guys, I got to feel like this was family, and I miss your wit, sincerity and passion.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 15, 2006, 11:16 AM
Quote
I check this site from time to time, but I can't stay here for extended periods of time, because it is not long before some thread is posted that says "Is rape all that bad?" or something else equally stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I like most of you guys, but imagine how welcome any of you fellas would feel at a NOW convention, and you get an idea on how it feels to be a woman here for any extended period of time.

I still say as I've said all along, that the hateful, mysogynistic members among your group are going to be the death of the MRM just as the hateful, misandrystic members killed feminism. But helping you see that is not my responsibility to bear, it is yours.


:loll: talk about hyperbole.

Please name names.  Name ONE misogynist on these boards.  ONE.  Past or present.  ONE.  Can you?

Regarding 'rape is not all that bad' - that was one thread started by Gabriel (this is purely from memory) - he was countering the outright hysteria that rape has with it - where feminsits have compared it to murder.   You've totally exaggerated that thread with your statement and taken it right out of context.

And, come on - comparing us to a NOW convention? You think NOW would entertain, even try to HELP the male equivilant of manhoodsbliss (a raving gender feminist we had on these boards)?? lkanneg, devia et al - all welcome here.  

Alicia, that one post has done you a great disservice.  You, like Niall, are casting accusations that are unfounded.   That says much more about you than the members of this messageboard.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 15, 2006, 11:20 AM
Thanks AliciaGoMavs, but I don't think most of us are into misogyny.
I'd call it a 'cowboy' effect. Justified anger results in shots being fired in all directions. A woman wears an 'enemy uniform' and thus becomes a target for a trigger-happy sniper.

I worry more about the in-fighting between men and women who are supposed to be on the same side. The atittude of 'my way or not at all' could be the death of us. There are so many issues that unite us but bickering about our minor differences seems to be more entertaining.

Some members are constantly ferreting out useful information from a wide range of sources in pursuit of a cause. They should deserve our respect. Others are seriously into bar-room politics. The longest threads are usually dominated by the 'others'. (Duke Lacrosse excepted for obvious reasons).
I sometimes wonder if a united front will ever materialise or whether we'll be picked off one by one. This is one of the most active MRA sites on the net but if we're not careful it will go the way of Askmen.com and we'll be arguing about penis size. God forbid.

At this point in time we're in deep shit.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 11:41 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Typhon, if I had full charge of my schedule I would be working. I would like to be working. The point I was trying to make, and you conveniently ignore each time I make it, is that am on call, 24/7 (I meaning many SAHPs).  That means that while can make my plans and plan my day or night, if anything happens, (a child gets sick, school is cancelled, a delivery is made) I am the one who changes my plans. Even when those plans are making money.


When I was a kid I believe I got sick enough to come home from school once a year, if that. I guess I was a healthy kid. I suppose you're talking about kids *staying* home sick as well. I think I got a flu or a cold about once a year. My mom put me to bed and I slept for a couple days.

Snow days happened once or twice every year. Never had a problem in the desert with school being cancelled.

Unless you count the gulf war.

Actually, I have a funny anacdote about the gulf war that sort of makes me question women when they say they "love" men. My mother and I were on a list to be evacuated with the other women and children (the men had to stay and work despite the danger). A lot of women were clamoring to be first out. My mom was one of the first to be randomly selected and she was going to give her spot to some other woman who actually wanted to leave. My father made us go. Niether she or I wanted to, and we came back at the first opportunity to get my dad as well(the second time around my mom refused to leave without him). But it was interesting, seeing all those women scrabbling to leave, little thought to the husbands they left behind. You really understand the nature of the word "love" in a war zone. Anyway, I digress...)

So we have a couple days a year that you need to sacrifice your plans to go get your children without proper notice.

Does anyone here have an anacdote about how much overtime they work and how often they have to come into work at short (or no notice) to deal with unexpected issues?

Quote
Also, idle time is not something everyone searches for. Ever wonder why depression is so common after retirement? Have you ever visited a nursing home? Have a parent that after working 31 years now sits in his house restless and depressed, hopeing the golf course will call to say they need him to work extra hours?


I have heard that men tend to commit sucide at retirement age but not women.

Hmm... I suppose they haven't been trained for idleness.

Quote
Idleness in limits is a gift, idleness in excess is not.


So homemakers have idleness in excess?

Quote
And when you choose to deal with the lack of structure so that you can be there for your kids? That is making a parenting decision for others rather than for yourself. I would have gotten through vet school and be working full time if I did what I want rather than what my kids and husband needed.


The specifics of your situation are not needed. If you aren't talking about statistics that refer to groups of people larger then, say 128, then it isn't relevant.

Quote
I think several people here have noted that there are definate cons to staying at home with kids. Again, you fail to recognize this.


I never said there weren't cons. Of course there are cons to every situation. I'm saying that homemaker is *preferable* to breadwinner.

Quote
No one here has said that being at home is harder, or worse than working as a sole income earner.  You seem to not be able to see grey. Yes, there is great sacrifice and work that comes with being a sole bread winner. There is also satisfaction and rewards which come from being a sole bread winner.


Sure. And there are also some serious, serious drawbacks. Why do men die earlier? Stress from work is probably the biggest culprit. I once read an article that directly related status and control over your work enviroment to longevity. In other words if you control your work enviroment and you have some sort of status(ie. control over others) you will live longer then those that don't. This held regardless of income. If you are a homemaker controlling your work enviroment and the day-to-day lives of your kids you are reaping the benefits of a relatively stress free life on your health. The issue isn't hassel or complexity... it's CONTROL.

Men also work in more dangerous enviroments because they don't have the choice. They have less leverage to negotiate for improved working conditions when they are the only breadwinner for a family (why do you think employees love married men? Because they are uncomplaining work horses.)

Quote
Your analogy is flawed above. Racial segrigation is not the issue here.  Bringing it in only creates emotional connotations which are irrelevant to the discussion. You also have created a hypothetical situation, so it is again not appliciable.  No one is 'assigning' anything. Any man can choose to not have a wife and kids, or can choose to keep looking until he finds a woman who is willing to work while he stays home. No one said it would be easy, but it is not against the law. That most men do not think to look is not the fault of SAHMs. It is an issue which needs to be addressed, but not one that needs to be blamed.


Okay, okay. I avoided getting into the issue of social dynamics but how about this...

Black buggy operators are compelled through social preassure to choose a white operator to pair up with. If they don't, or if they choose another black operator, they are called Gobbiwots which is a derogatory term that means "less then human, digusting and sinful."

Quote
You could go one further if you choose to have your analogy-there is the puller and the person walking behind with a shovel picking up turds. The person pulling is getting paid, and the person shoveling is not. The person who picks up the  turds lives off the puller. Pulling is a harder job physically, but picking up turds isn't exactly fun either, and comes with its own unpleasantness.  I guess the driver would be those whose parents could afford a nifty education for them.


And the person picking up turds gets to spend most of what the puller makes, and, eventually, gets to purchase an automatic turd picker.

Quote
Women at the turn of the century could have gone to college and worked, most didn't, and in your mind that was a flaw of women. Now men choose not to stay home, and it is still a flaw of women. That makes no sense. In my mind, at the turn of the century most women were discouraged from working, in the same way men today are discouraged from staying home.


Actually, I think you'll find that most women at the turn of the century worked. Either on the farm or as domestic servants.

BTW, do you agree that there is a selection preassure that helps women in regards to choosing to be homemakers? Or is it just random? Or perhaps evolutionary?

I was also curious, who paid for your vet training?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 11:46 AM
Quote from: "Malakas"

At this point in time we're in deep shit.


When I dispair Malakas I remind myself that groups like this tend to form *because* of deeper social shifts, they don't create them.

I believe, and I hope, that progress will be made on these issues. But at the same time I think it's mostly going to come when women wake up and realize their entitlement and their responsibility to the rest of human kind.

That's what I'm fighting for.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: PowerMan72 on Jun 15, 2006, 11:47 AM
Quote
I don't expect to be treated well as a prerequisite to believing that men in the west deserve better then what they're getting now. (Or that women in the east deserve likewise, etc. etc.) The right thing to do is the right thing to do, and often has nothing to do with what's easy or comfortable.


:yes:

Exactly.  If you're looking to have your ego stroked for doing the right thing, then you've come to the wrong place.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 15, 2006, 11:50 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"

I mean guys *have* picked on me in the past. Mr. Bad just called me a femonazi. ;)


Heh, if having one defining opinion or belief - vs. the entire Gestalt that is one's philosophy of life - makes one a feminazi, then I'm a card-carrying feminazi too.  After all, I believe in reproductive choice for women.  The fact that I also believe in reproductive  choice for men surely doesn't enter into this, right?  ;)

Quote from: "typhonblue"
But, seriously, I realize that if a guy picks on me because I'm a woman, it's just one man's opinion and that doesn't affect the essential truth of the men's rights issue.

I don't expect to be treated well as a prerequisite to believing that men in the west deserve better then what they're getting now. (Or that women in the east deserve likewise, etc. etc.) The right thing to do is the right thing to do, and often has nothing to do with what's easy or comfortable.

Something that *does* bug me is that I always end up arguing with women. I'd rather these arguments feel less like some sort of female turf war. :S

It was more fun to argue with Angry Harry that one time. And I doubt he even remembers it much less holds a grudge. :D


I also think that some people who visit here make the mistake of interpreting a challenge or even an attack on an idea as an attack on the person themselves.  Dr. E. does a really good job of sussing out such nuances, but alas, not all of us are as good at it as he is.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 11:56 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
This is why when I am done with this thread I will not stay.   It is not up to me to change the board, it is up to me whether I have to deal with it or not.


Well I, for one, don't think you should leave but it is your own decision. I know I've had to call it quits on here a few times because I get too upset.

BTW, I think if women just *accept* the fact that there exist social preassures that benefit them and lead to their entitlement... and then think about how to use that entitlement to make things more equitable and fair... that would be good.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 15, 2006, 11:57 AM
I think a more reasonable analogy would be like men going to Hugo's board. Men are 'welcome' there, but are not treated very well by a few.  Most are decent folks, but the vocal few set the tone.  


Two years ago, I tried working part time at a vet clinic. In January, both my kids got sick. One after the other, both had to be home for weeks due to a racking cough. I was taking them to work with me, or my husband would stay home from his $70 an hour job (apx, he is salary) so I could go to my $6 an hour job, for about 5 weeks in a row.

When I was a child I was out at least 2 weeks total. Kids today are getting some pretty bad viruses. Many have allergies which make it worse.

Snow days? Manditory 6 a year here. If they are not used, they get added to vacation time. I thought you lived around the world when you were a kid, in the middle east-they have snow days there? I live in the North East. Two years ago we had 7 feet of snow nearby.

Minor holidays? Summer vacations? Kids only go to school less than  2/3 of the actual year, when you count the days.

Yes, a lot of women manage, when working is worth the stress, disruption, etc that having both parents gone creates.  

I have not gotten vet training-I stayed home instead. I have a high school education. I would have gotten student loans and paid it back once I was working-just like I will be doing in the fall when I go back to school full time.

Who paid for yours?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 12:07 PM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Two years ago, I tried working part time at a vet clinic. In January, both my kids got sick. One after the other, both had to be home for weeks due to a racking cough. I was taking them to work with me, or my husband would stay home from his $70 an hour job (apx, he is salary) so I could go to my $6 an hour job, for about 5 weeks in a row.


I'm not arguing that YOU didn't do what was right for you and your family. I'm arguing that IN GENERAL women are entitled to a choice between work and home.

The choice, plus the fact that home-making is a self-directed job, means that women are getting a serious bonus.

Quote
Snow days? Manditory 6 a year here. If they are not used, they get added to vacation time. I thought you lived around the world when you were a kid, in the middle east-they have snow days there? I live in the North East. Two years ago we had 7 feet of snow nearby.


Yes, I did live around the world. Including places where they do get snow. Although our snow days are more like "the gas has frozen in the tank" days. It's cold, but we don't get much preciptation.

Quote
Minor holidays? Summer vacations? Kids only go to school less than  2/3 of the actual year, when you count the days.


I guess your kids are different then I was. When I was home I did my own thing. Parental time investment not needed.

Of course I started writing science fiction when I was 10 and before then I always had my little projects and inventions to tinker on.

Quote
Who paid for yours?


My parents, god bless 'em. ;)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 15, 2006, 12:25 PM
Got it now! Eureka!
Biscuit Queen posted at 1.55 on my local clock. TB responded at 2.41.
Forty six minutes to compose 1,264 words, not counting title or footer. It's about how we spend our 'leisure time'. Some people are lucky to have so much.
TB responded:
Quote
When I dispair Malakas I remind myself that groups like this tend to form *because* of deeper social shifts, they don't create them.

I believe, and I hope, that progress will be made on these issues. But at the same time I think it's mostly going to come when women wake up and realize their entitlement and their responsibility to the rest of human kind.
OK TB, perhaps you feel strongly. But why is it always so inward-looking? The social-shifts that you correctly refer to have always been with us, since the dawn of civilisation.

Comments on how these shifts affect ME, is ok when it comes to giving examples. For most people in the world ME is a priority too. But in sane societies ME is a sub-set of family, community and nation.

Pushing a personal point ad infinitum is a hiding to nothing and an indicator that the writer, as much as he/she belives otherwise, is beholden to Big Government for their freedom to write. That freedom to write derives from the toil of promising and intelligent illiterates all around the world, who are exploited to feed big, fancy ideas. they have neither the resources nor the education to promulgate their own ME ideas. Perhaps they would if they could, who knows?

We sometimes forget how priveleged we are.  That's why we're in deep shit.

BTW I read the latest exchanges. Sorry, I forgot we're in a cosy chat room.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 15, 2006, 12:46 PM
Quote from: "IMHO"
You, like Niall, are casting accusations that are unfounded.


Projection like a drive-in movie theater.

I'm getting pretty damn tired of your antics, IMHO.

Exactly WHAT accusation did I cast that was unfounded, that I have not apologized for? *

The burden of proof falls on your side, little man. Now let's see if you can produce it.


*Though I did apologize for the accusation I made earlier, I have since wondered if that was mistake on my part, since all the women here with the exception of typhonblue have said exactly the same thing I did in my original "accusation"
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 12:57 PM
Cool it with the name calling.  If this thread can't stay civil I will close it out.  I would hate to do that since I think there is some important discussion going on.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 15, 2006, 01:11 PM
From Niall:
Quote
IMHO wrote:
You, like Niall, are casting accusations that are unfounded.


Projection like a drive-in movie theater.

I'm getting pretty damn tired of your antics, IMHO.

Exactly WHAT accusation did I cast that was unfounded?

The burden of proof falls on your side, little man. Now let's see if you can produce it.
I gave Niall the benefit of the doubt and encouraged him to come into the fold, but I suspect he just wants to pick a fight with anybody in reach. His 'little man' insult betrayed his own insecurity.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Niall on Jun 15, 2006, 01:15 PM
Quote from: "Malakas"
I gave Niall the benefit of the doubt and encouraged him to come into the fold, but I suspect he just wants to pick a fight with anybody in reach. His 'little man' insult betrayed his own insecurity.


Given the current fragile nature of this thread, I am simply not going to respond to Malakas remark, at least not at this time. Maybe later when I've cooled off and this thread has stabilized somewhat.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 15, 2006, 02:11 PM
Quote
Projection like a drive-in movie theater.


Quote
The burden of proof falls on your side, little man. Now let's see if you can produce it.


I'll leave the reader's imagination to follow the dots of my own rather twisted sense of humour here.

Quote
I'm getting pretty damn tired of your antics, IMHO.


Well for some people it seems the first straw is their last straw.  You seem to have accelerated to a state of great distress over my posts.  I wouldn't worry about them too much.  

Quote
Exactly WHAT accusation did I cast that was unfounded, that I have not apologized for?


Here's the false accusation bit:-

Quote
This is just the latest in an ongoing trend I've seen here at SYG -- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.


That's pretty damning evidence as a false accusation.  Apologising for it doesn't make you a non-false accuser.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 02:45 PM
Quote from: "Malakas"
Got it now! Eureka!
Biscuit Queen posted at 1.55 on my local clock. TB responded at 2.41.
Forty six minutes to compose 1,264 words, not counting title or footer. It's about how we spend our 'leisure time'. Some people are lucky to have so much.


For me, my leisure time comes in spurts.

For instance, in two days you guys won't hear for me for two weeks. After that I'll probably be sporadic because I'll probably be hitting the 12-16 hour days... again. :\

But at least it's not the 18-20 hour days of March-April. *sigh*

Plus I type quick.

Quote

We sometimes forget how priveleged we are.  That's why we're in deep shit.


Don't forget, just don't feel guilty.

Finally...

In the "Women marrying up squeeze" thread an article quotes a woman as saying something like "I'm used to this lifestyle, I want a man who is paid the same or better then me." The implication is that she will only marry a man who will allow her to quit and thus become the sole provider.

Now, there is a big difference between a couple making the *joint* decision that it makes economic, emotional, and logistical sense for one of them staying home and all those women, like Ms. Me-First up there, who are basically planning to quit as soon as they get married (or whenever is convient for them.) _Before_ they've even located Mr. Right.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 15, 2006, 03:32 PM
Quote

I'm not arguing that YOU didn't do what was right for you and your family. I'm arguing that IN GENERAL women are entitled to a choice between work and home.

The choice, plus the fact that home-making is a self-directed job, means that women are getting a serious bonus.



I never said it wasn't a bonus to have that choice.

I never said that having freedom to make plan your day, reletively speaking, wasn't also a bonus.

You did say that SAHMs contribute nothing to the marriage.

You are right now kinder and gentler, but I will not forget that earlier in this same thread you were going for the throat.

You won, I will not stay and spar any longer with you. I will never change your mind, and I am just not willing to bang my head against a brick wall. You certainly will not change mine.  The stupid thing is we are on the same fucking side. I hope you enjoy your victory.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 03:40 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Al - What you said was that three people had been driven away from this site.  I think that is a misrepresentation and an exageration.


I think not E.. No offense pal but where is Christiane?  Where is TBQ?  where is CM for the most part?  I know for a fact that the venomous retorts that some use here are the reason for their sudden disapearance.  Granted, Mary attempts to get back into it every once in a while but only to get PO'd and leave again.  I don't liek to see that happen.  Not because they are women, but because they are people that I like and admire.  

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Typhon's statement was not without fault but it didn't break any rules here and was not a personal attack.


Again E. I never said it WAS an attack.  I said that there are borderline comments........, you asked me to show you an example... I did.  You yourself even said that it was "not without fault".  That is all I ment.


Quote from: "Dr Evil"
What it did was make her point which was that men have been used as slaves and without the slaves all adult women would be working.  


That is what you got outah that post?  WOW!  Am I dense then.  I got exactly what it was ment to be, a little dig to rouse Christiane up.  And it worked.

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Christiane was bluntly claiming that SAHM's loved men and implying that they would come running to the defense of men's issues if they were only "woo'ed."  Both are entitled to their opinions.  Neither is doing anything wrong. This issue carries a big emotional payload Please don"t fan the fire.


I didn't care for Christiane's statement either.  I woo noone.  You wanna help?  Do something about the injustices.  You don't?  Then get the eff off this roller-coaster, cause it aint stoppin!  But that still doesnt give me the right to fork-tongue her into an argument so that she will say something in retaliation and thusly get banned.  OR better yet, get frustrated and leave.  

And please E, don't accuse me of fanning the fires.. Just look at TB, Devia, and Gault.  PERFECT examples of folks saying what will cause emotion and fire.... I may agree or disagree with them on occasion, but please.... in THIS case.... ME FANNING?  I think not.  I do admit to doing so on occasion though.  I am but human.  Gimme whose name cannot be stated and whoa nellie!  I am all over her arse!  Hmmm, maybe that's it.  TB just doesn't like Christiane and TBQ and that is why she "eggs them on".  All in my opinion of course.

I'll say this right now, if anyone should be leaving it should be Typhon.  I dislike her antics, her debating style, her apparent obsession with homosexuality (men), and her alleged preference to boy toy/boy-on-boy anime porno.  And let's not forget that little ditty implying that Christiane was TBQ.  Yes, I saw it and I am sure others did.  It is one thing to be almost certain and accuse, it's another to just make statements to create a defensive posture or "fan the fire" as you call it.  

But this is MY opinion, isn't it.  So there you have it.  Chivalry at it's best I guess.  

And for the record, if this discussion was about men and not the women above, I WOULD STILL be stating this.

TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 04:13 PM
Al - Because people have left does not mean that they have been driven out as you have stated.  I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Making an assumption like that is pretty dangerous.  Have those three experienced hurt feelings?  Yes.  Does every poster here like them and think they are sweet and grand?  No.  BFD.  Are you suggesting that we now need to start moderating content and not just worrying about personal attacks but also give people warnings for the manner in which they post?  Should we tell Typhon that she needs to be nicer?  

I say the rules of this forum need to be enforced. If they are enforced then if you can live with it stick with us, if you can't then find someplace else that suits you.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 15, 2006, 04:21 PM
Thanks TMOTS.

I apologize for the statement about "wooing us",  if it offended you or anyone else.    It was meant in a nice way.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 04:47 PM
You seem to have started a popular thread, Christiane.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 05:21 PM
Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"

I'll say this right now, if anyone should be leaving it should be Typhon.  I dislike her antics, her debating style, her apparent obsession with homosexuality (men), and her alleged preference to boy toy/boy-on-boy anime porno.  And let's not forget that little ditty implying that Christiane was TBQ.  Yes, I saw it and I am sure others did.  It is one thing to be almost certain and accuse, it's another to just make statements to create a defensive posture or "fan the fire" as you call it.  


Since this was adressed to me, I'll speak to it.

I wasn't implying that TBQ was Christiane... I was speaking to the fact that I've had *exactly* the same argument with she-who-shall-not-be-named, sue, Christiane and TBQ.

As for yaoi(boy-on-boy anime)... who the fuck cares? Me and half the female population of Asia. It was first brought up by the people on ifeminism who, apparently, read my livejournal and wanted a way to discredit me.  

Let everyone dump out their porn lockers and see what we find. :)

As for an obsession with homosexuality... I'm not a shill for the lifestyle I have just noticed certain social correlates. In fact, if we were on a gay forum you'd be seeing me offer criticisms of the "culture" that would probably get me banned right quick.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 05:26 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Al - Because people have left does not mean that they have been driven out as you have stated.  I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Making an assumption like that is pretty dangerous.


Dangerous?  Assumptions?  I think not E.  I have been told by individuals that they are leaving because of X, Y, Z.  I have never, and never will, make an accusation that I cannot back up.  I stand by my claim, because it is true.

Just reread the last few pages.  TBQ has stated some-such, AGM has as well, CM has stated similar.... Christiane has not stated publicly but (sorry Christiane) she has told me.

And I suggest nothing.  I am merely injecting my opinion based upon facts as I know them.  The individuals in question are, in fact, the cause for at least three people to leave SYG.  That is a fact.  Like it or not.  And it bothers me greatly.  Their gender is of no interrest to me.  It is the situation that matters to me.  If we drive just one person that is on the fence, so to speak, or seeking an answer to many the questions that we discuss, then we have done no good.  We must gain allies.  We plenty of enemies already.

Again, I stand by my accusation as you call it.  It is fact.  In each of these cases, the common factor is TB and/or Galt.  FACT E.  I am sorry, but I mean no disrespect, nor ill will, just backing up my statements as you requested.  I respect what you do, I know it is hard, and I know that you have on more than one occasion given me a nudge (for lack of a better word) in the right direction with my posts.  And for that I thank you.  But I still am calling a spade a spade when it comes to this issue.


TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 05:34 PM
Quote
Dangerous? Assumptions? I think not E. I have been told by individuals that they are leaving because of X, Y, Z. I have never, and never will, make an accusation that I cannot back up. I stand by my claim, because it is true.


I think Mike Nifong says something similar.  Simply because someone leaves is no reason to claim that they were "driven" out.  Even if those involved claim that they were driven out it still does not make it fact.  

So tell me Al, what would you do to change things here.  How would you go about protecting these posters from being "driven" out?  How would you censor Typhon and Galt and for what reasons?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 05:36 PM
Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
In each of these cases, the common factor is TB and/or Galt.  


What's your proposed solution, Al?  Should I not only be kicked off this board but also banned from the entire Internet?

I'm giving my honest thoughts on how I see society.  I try not to get personal or attack specific people (maybe I'm not always successful at that).

Some male posters have left for different reasons, and you don't seem to be as concerned about that.

I think at least part of your new campaign against Typhonblue and me involves the fact that you stand on the other side of the issue, but you're attacking the people not the idea.

Internet discussions can get contentious - but I don't think I'd want to have a tea party where no one really says anything.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 05:38 PM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Quote

I'm not arguing that YOU didn't do what was right for you and your family. I'm arguing that IN GENERAL women are entitled to a choice between work and home.

The choice, plus the fact that home-making is a self-directed job, means that women are getting a serious bonus.



I never said it wasn't a bonus to have that choice.

I never said that having freedom to make plan your day, reletively speaking, wasn't also a bonus.

You did say that SAHMs contribute nothing to the marriage.


I said that over the last century the role of SAHM has reduced it's actual output by 50% plus.

Individual situations vary. *Your* individual situation varies. If you and your husband made the choice to have you stay at home because it benefited both of you, then YOU ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is the women who make the choice unilaterally to benefit themselves. And then either blackmail their husbands into agreeing, assume that *that is the way it will be*, use emotional manipulation, or just do it.

Even if you *are* only working that 50%, if it was a mutual decision by you and your husband, then it's your own business.

None of what Galt and I point out has to do with you specificially. NOTHING.

Are you a woman who expected her husband to provide? No. You're one who was forced into the role of homemaker do to circumstances(sick children) outside your control. It sounds like you'd rather be working at something you enjoy and that, where you can, you try to ease your husband's burden by taking on work and raising livestock.

I hope you get the chance to pursue your interests further.

Quote
You are right now kinder and gentler, but I will not forget that earlier in this same thread you were going for the throat.


I'm not being kinder or gentler. I say what I believe and that is that. I think I've actually had a breakthrough in why, exactly, people are so upset.

I'm not talking about you *specifically*. In fact the one time I did refer to you specifically in all the time we've been on this forum together was probably during that first ever conflaguration.

Which, in retrospect, I feel bad about because it wasn't about theory, deductive reasoning or statistical statements but my own shitty emotional state. *grits teeth* Sorry.

Quote
You won, I will not stay and spar any longer with you. I will never change your mind, and I am just not willing to bang my head against a brick wall. You certainly will not change mine.  The stupid thing is we are on the same fucking side. I hope you enjoy your victory.


If you believe you have been, as a woman, entitled to a certain quality of life that men often don't have the choice or the ability to obtain. And that you should use what you've been entitled with to help out somehow, then we're on the same side.

That's it. No point saying "oh man, I'm a homemaker, I must flagellate myself everyday for the rest of my life to make up for it."

I tell you what... I'll give my solem oath that, every time I critize homemakers, I'm thinking "women who unilaterally decide that they are owed that lifestyle and have chosen in spite of their partner's desires."

Please stay.

*edit* let me put this another way. It's the attitude I'm critiquing, the belief that women are owed a living from men. And, believe me, I know working women who have the same damn attitude so it isn't just home-makers. In fact many homemakers(homesteaders) are doing great things for their husbands and the enviroment... but, at the same token, many more are sitting on their asses and watching oprah.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 05:39 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Since this was adressed to me, I'll speak to it.


Actually, it wasn't.  It as ABOUT you, not addressed to you.


Quote from: "typhonblue"
I wasn't implying that TBQ was Christiane... I was speaking to the fact that I've had *exactly* the same argument with she-who-shall-not-be-named, sue, Christiane and TBQ.



Maybe... maybe not... but your style of fork-tongues responses to people on occasion dictates otherwise.  Just as mine does.  I do it, so I know what it looks like TB.

Quote from: "typhonblue"
As for yaoi(boy-on-boy anime)... who the fuck cares? Me and half the female population of Asia. It was first brought up by the people on ifeminism who, apparently, read my livejournal and wanted a way to discredit me.


Thus the reason I have never brought it up prior to this discussion.  I really dont care, but I do find it offensive.  Why?  Who the fuck cares why..  

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Let everyone dump out their porn lockers and see what we find. :) .


Touche!  :-)

Quote from: "typhonblue"
As for an obsession with homosexuality... I'm not a shill for the lifestyle I have just noticed certain social correlates.


Never said you were, just said that MY OPINION is that you seem to be obsessed with boy on boy and male homosexual porn.  I never have asked, nor want to know why you find object and penile penetration into a mans ass stimulating.  What ever floats your boat I say.....

Maybe it is because you secretly find gratification in the image.  A sort of control thing.  Seeing a man in a position of being dominated, especially if it's humiliating.  The more the better.  Young boys in homosexual acts, anime or not, is pedophelia to me but maybe you are just a closet feminist that likes the idea of a man getting a huge dildo or a tenticle ladened arm in the ass... THAT'LL SHOW HIM!  who knows...

In case you didn't know, that last para was an example of a fork-tongued post to garner a reactionary response.....

TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 05:54 PM
In line with what Typhonblue is saying about unilaterality, here is a thread on that:

http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6215

That discusses an article about a psychologist who is seeing a lot of men in the "beast of burden" position.

"When I ask a male client to step back and think about it, many of them realize that their wives have tried--usually successfully--to subtly or not so subtly coerce them into being the primary or sole breadwinner, the beast of burden. Those women make the above arguments, plus use manipulative techniques such as crying, guilt-tripping, screaming, avoiding the topic of getting a job, and forever promising to look for work but making feeble efforts."
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 05:55 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
I think Mike Nifong says something similar.  Simply because someone leaves is no reason to claim that they were "driven" out.  Even if those involved claim that they were driven out it still does not make it fact.


True E.  And there lies the conundrum.  I have been placed in the position of defender based upon the words of another.  Ihave no easy answer E.  I really don't.  What I do know is that based upon the posts that "allegedly" (is that better?) caused these individuals to leave, I found reason.  Just in this thread alone, TB and Gaults comments toward Christian, AMV, and TBQ are proof of the venomous comments.  No, not attacks, but damned close.

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
So tell me Al, what would you do to change things here.  How would you go about protecting these posters from being "driven" out?  How would you censor Typhon and Galt and for what reasons?


First off, I DO NOT support any sort of censorship.  So get that idea of what I am saying out of your mind.  What to do?  I don't HONESTLY know!  I really don't!  I run a few boards as well, and sometimes it gets heated.  Do I censor?  Not on your life.  Do I pull folks asside and say "hey you goober, that was a little harsh, don't ya think?"  Most Def.  But a mod can't always do that.  I know this.

You asked me to back up what I stated, I believe I have.  I have no issue with you.  Shoot, I don't even really have issues with TB and Galt.  To each his or her own.  I am just stating what I see... my prospective... my opinion.  

I never meant for this to turn into "Oh now Al is protecting the poor widdow women"......

I am protecting noone.  I am merely voicing my opinions and explaining what I believe to be an issue.

That's it E.

Al
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 06:07 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
What's your proposed solution, Al?  Should I not only be kicked off this board but also banned from the entire Internet?


Come on now.  I never said that, and I really don't know what to do.  As I have stated many time already, I am merely staing my opinions... as are you.

Quote from: "Galt"
I'm giving my honest thoughts on how I see society.  I try not to get personal or attack specific people (maybe I'm not always successful at that).


And I see that Galt.  But I also see another side.  Again, as I have said prior, I know what it looks like because I do it on occasion as well.


Quote from: "Galt"
Some male posters have left for different reasons, and you don't seem to be as concerned about that.


I was wondering how long it would be before this was brought to the surface.  Reread my posts, you'll see that I have state a few times now that their gender is irrelivant.  I have heard from males as well.  But the topic of discussion is these particular women, so believe what you will about me.

Quote from: "Galt"
I think at least part of your new campaign against Typhonblue and me involves the fact that you stand on the other side of the issue, but you're attacking the people not the idea.


No, actually I don't.  You have misread my stance.  I agree with you both for the most part.  That is not the issue.  It may have been the topic at hand at one time, but now it is whether or not Al is a chivalrous boob.  

TMOTS (AkA Al) Official stance on this issue:

I think a woman (or man) that is home with the children because they, the man and woman, have decided that one should stay home to better the children is fine.  I have an issue with a woman that decides or assumes this on her own... because it's somehow her right.  NOT!   I also have an issue with a woman (or man for that matter) staying home when there are no children present.  Both should work IMO to better the HOUSEHOLD and THEIR lives.

TMOTS
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 06:20 PM
Al- Let's be honest here.  You are protecting the women.  Christiane emailed you today and complained about her treatment on this board.  You post a message in her defense complaining about her treatment here.  She posts a thank you to you after you post.  

Complaining about the board, it's posters, and its moderation and then having no suggestions about what could be done is not particularly helpful.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 06:24 PM
I am being honest E.  Shall I expound?  Last week, she offer to assist me on the FA.com site.  Two days ago, she writes me and tells me that she cannot be a part of this all because she was unaware of what she was getting to or some such. Somewhat confused, I wrote back asking her what was the problem and why the change?  and she then responded with her reasons.

Please E.  Don't misunderstand me.  I am not defending these women per ce.  I am stating what I personally feel is an issue.

Al
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 06:27 PM
Also, I might add:  I don't fess to be a man of solutions.  But if I see what I see, I say something.  There are others more inept at solving that I.

And implying that I am somehow in cohoots (sp) with "the women" is low E.  Very beneath you.  As you have said to me, I would have expected more from you.

Al
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 06:30 PM
Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
I am being honest E.  Shall I expound?  Last week, she offer to assist me on the FA.com site.  Two days ago, she writes me and tells me that she cannot be a part of this all because she was unaware of what she was getting to or some such. Somewhat confused, I wrote back asking her what was the problem and why the change?  and she then responded with her reasons.

Please E.  Don't misunderstand me.  I am not defending these women per ce.  I am stating what I personally feel is an issue.

Al


What issue? She offered to help and then rescinded it.

If it was a man, I would say that it's not being a responsible person to offer someone help and then rescind it for some other dramatic reason not even related to you. What you describe - and I realize you're giving your side, and we haven't heard the other side - sounds a bit like irresponsible game-playing.

The "issue" is that once people do that to me once, I don't fall for it again.

No need for chivalristic heroics to complete the drama.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 15, 2006, 06:34 PM
Then shall we concede to just end this here and now?  I am about fed up with defending my opinions.

Al
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 15, 2006, 06:40 PM
Dr E, three women on this thread have said the reason they left was due to two people. A fourth agreed.

You can pretend it didn't happen, you can deny it, but there it is. We all felt run out of town. We all have stated it in one place.


For me personally, I was given a LOT of support by some wonderful men and women on this board. It was not enough to counter the stress of having to consciously turn the other cheek or rumble.  When I am getting upset in real life over something on line, something has to change.  When some men PM me to show me support, but are too intimidated by threats of "you are protecting the women"  to say anything in public, then it makes it doubly hard.   I cannot believe that anyone here would throw that stone. It is as bad as the "You're just a misogynist" line.

Several people have told me they did not like some of the radicalism on this board, but feared speaking out. That is a problem, but no longer mine.  


TB, I appreciate your olive branch.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 06:43 PM
I want to be extremely careful now and not attack Christiane based on what you are saying. Maybe there's another side to it.

But lets take a general situation with regard to what you are describing. I'm not talking about Christiane here:

For me, that's almost the core of what I want to try to get across to men.  Some women (*some*) are good at getting men to do their dirty work, so to speak.

They don't say, "Man, do my dirty work" and expect compliance. They promise and then retract, they build up expectations and then disappoint. Men bite on that big time.

I've seen college-age women trying to pull those stunts on my friend's son. Thank God he has had a REAL talk with him.  But the other college boys fall for that stuff.  You'd think standing a guy up for a date would discourage him.  Au Contraire, it actually drives them on.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 15, 2006, 06:53 PM
Quote
Al- Let's be honest here. You are protecting the women.


Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes. I had my tent packed and loaded on the cart some time ago. I do wish you stop trotting out such statements Doc. You let yourself down.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 06:54 PM
Quote
You can pretend it didn't happen, you can deny it, but there it is. We all felt run out of town. We all have stated it in one place.


BQ - I don't contest that you all left nor that you felt that you were run out.  The fact is that of all the posters here there were only two that you all had difficulty with.  Those two seemed to get under your skin for whatever reason.  Do you think that I should be responsible for your irritation?  Do you think that the board should run and assist anyone who feels hurt or insulted?  Frankly I think that allowing you to take care of yourselves is the best policy. You are all adults and responsible.  If you get upset by being here then perhaps this is not the place for you.  

OTOH if there are rules that are broken or people who are breaking rules here and attacking others then that is a different matter altogether.  I didn't see anything that resembled that nor have there been any claims to that effect.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 06:55 PM
Quote from: "Sir Percy"
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes. I had my tent packed and loaded on the cart some time ago. I do wish you stop trotting out such statements Doc. You let yourself down.


Or maybe he's on to something.

Do you think that I, as a man, could get away with some of the things described here?  (See the bottom of the last page, for example).

I think men definitely have it in them to be chivalrous with regard to women.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 07:09 PM
Biscuit Queen, you sound like a nice person, and for once I'm not being sarcastic.

But I think you are equating an opinion you don't like with radicalism.

Maybe it's radical, maybe it's not, but I thought I was literally the only person on the planet who thought the way I do back in the 1980s let's say.  But I have heard a LOT of men starting to say the same things I'm thinking lately. At Christmas, a guy almost whispered it to me at a family party, so that his wife wouldn't hear what I said.

I think it's starting to become an issue, because technology is advancing, women are taking on new roles in society, and the traditional roles of men will also be adjusted.

In 50 years there will probably literally be robots that are good enough to take care of any household chores. If you don't believe that, look at the quotes in 1979 about home computers being "toys" and useless. Robots today are equivalent to home computers at that time.  Only child-rearing will remain before the child is in school. So this whole issue involves a chunk of history from let's say the 1950s to 2050.  Really a blip in history, and basically only in North America and Western Europe.  And Japan.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 07:34 PM
Sorry, I'm not trying to be a spammer here, but I wanted to pull up this quote from the last page again because no one seems to have seen it:

"When I ask a male client to step back and think about it, many of them realize that their wives have tried--usually successfully--to subtly or not so subtly coerce them into being the primary or sole breadwinner, the beast of burden. Those women make the above arguments, plus use manipulative techniques such as crying, guilt-tripping, screaming, avoiding the topic of getting a job, and forever promising to look for work but making feeble efforts."
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: BaltimoreMan on Jun 15, 2006, 07:51 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote
You can pretend it didn't happen, you can deny it, but there it is. We all felt run out of town. We all have stated it in one place.


BQ - I don't contest that you all left nor that you felt that you were run out.  The fact is that of all the posters here there were only two that you all had difficulty with.  Those two seemed to get under your skin for whatever reason.  Do you think that I should be responsible for your irritation?  Do you think that the board should run and assist anyone who feels hurt or insulted?  Frankly I think that allowing you to take care of yourselves is the best policy. You are all adults and responsible.  If you get upset by being here then perhaps this is not the place for you.  

OTOH if there are rules that are broken or people who are breaking rules here and attacking others then that is a different matter altogether.  I didn't see anything that resembled that nor have there been any claims to that effect.


Dr. E, I see your frustration here.
A few people got their feelings hurt. Some of it was misunderstandings on their part. Some of it was postings (esp one from TyphonBlue) that verged on the edge of being actionable.

Both of the posters they are complaining about have, in one way or another apologized for inadvertently hurting feelings and extended an olive branch. Instead the ones who are leaving (or who claim to have already left and came back here apparently just to rub it in - I speak of AGM here - ) have for the most part refused to acknowledge the apologies nor acceeded to any misunderstandings on their part of this argument. Posting here sholdn't be based on popularity of one's opinions, and moderators shouldn't be coerced into acting against people who are perceived by some to have done wrong, esp when those who complain neither can point out where the rules were broken nor how moderation should be fixed to address their complaints.

In short, what is really being complained about here is that the rules of this forum- in some unspecified way - are too lax and do not penalize things that should be penalized.

It's really not helpful to continue to worry about this. Those who need an even more moderated style of debate have other forums they can go to;
those who base their entire opinion of MRA issues on whether their feelings get hurt on an online forum rather than the soundness of the arguments or the justice of the cause are not allies we need. You've tried to address this, but none of the dissenters can tell you how given the rules of the forum as is currently written. And since they can't point out specific things they'd like to see changed or give any ideas for rule modification, I don't see why they bother coming here at all. I'll miss a few of them - CM and BQ thank you for everything you've done on your own time and many wonderful posts, SP thanks for being the good man you are - I'll ride into battle with you anytime- but the rest can go and good riddance. Ultimately ideas and intellectual integrity must rule the day here or we'll just become another echo chamber.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 15, 2006, 07:58 PM
Thank you Baltimore Man for understanding and articulating the jist of what I have been trying to get across.  Very much appreciated.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: neonsamurai on Jun 15, 2006, 08:13 PM
Gah! I don't want anyone to leave.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, so I've probably not picked up on the subtlties at work here, but it seems that many of my favourite posters here are at loggerheads.

I hope folks stick around here, particularly BQ and Contrarymary. I appreciate that there's a bias towards the man's P.O.V. here, but you could have a gender neutral platform to argue from AND still keep free speech relatively intact, unless you had the worlds most level headed and equal minded people, and that ain't gonna happen.

Anyway let's all gather around and have a big hug.


*Neon tries to instigate a group hug like he does at most parties, but ends up smiling in a pleading sort of way with his arms outstretched whilst everyone retreats to the other side of the room*
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 09:17 PM
I think - I have to ponder this further - that there is something here that I have overlooked with regard to the extreme (*extreme*) reaction to the ideas presented here. That in itself is worthy of thought.

I had an extreme reaction once when I went to some dentist complaining about a sore tooth.  He put his little pointy stick right into the offending pulp, and I almost shot through the ceiling. He probably did it on purpose.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 15, 2006, 09:21 PM
Dr. E:  I sent you an email this afternoon in response to a very nice email from you.   Within that email, I quoted some passages from an earlier email I sent to TMOTS.   You have seen fit, without notifying me, or asking for my permission, to publicly state that I sent an email to TMOTS "complaining" about my treatment on this board.

First, let me say that my bedrock policy, when dealing with emails sent to me, is that I never divulge the contents without the express consent of the sender.   I believe that is honorable.  

Secondly, you were only provided, by me, with an excerpt of the email I sent to TMOTS, and any extrapolations you choose to make are by definition, out of context.   You have no information about anything else I might have said to him of an explanatory nature.   Which is none of your business.

You asked me in your email what might the MRM do to attract more women to the cause, and I spent some time giving my thoughts on this.   I regret that.

I would have thought, as a man of honor, that you would hold private communications as that.   Private.   However, since you obviously are not, and you obviously don't, I hereby give you permission to publish anything I've written to you with the exception of my real name.  

Which, as you know, I have given you.   In good faith.   That was most likely a mistake as well.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 09:25 PM
Edited to keep my nose out of this.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 15, 2006, 09:41 PM
Quote
Christiane emailed you today and complained about her treatment on this board.


That's very specific, and could only have been garnered from my private email to him.   I shared a brief part of my email to TMOTS with Dr. E, in a private communication.  

And I am helping TMOTS with his website.   I've gone through half a ream of paper and a whole ink cartridge so far.   I've also sent in a sizable donation.   Not that it's any business of yours.

What are you doing to help in a tangible way, Galt?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 15, 2006, 09:41 PM
Edited: I'm going to withdraw from this dramatic performance.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 15, 2006, 09:47 PM
Right - you've decided that since you've done nothing yourself to help the cause in a tangible way, you'll tuck your neck back into your tortoise shell.
Your non participation constitutes "drama".

You're quite a guy, galt.  The MRM is indeed lucky to have you on their side.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 15, 2006, 09:51 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote
You can pretend it didn't happen, you can deny it, but there it is. We all felt run out of town. We all have stated it in one place.


BQ - I don't contest that you all left nor that you felt that you were run out.  The fact is that of all the posters here there were only two that you all had difficulty with.  Those two seemed to get under your skin for whatever reason.  Do you think that I should be responsible for your irritation?  Do you think that the board should run and assist anyone who feels hurt or insulted?  Frankly I think that allowing you to take care of yourselves is the best policy. You are all adults and responsible.  If you get upset by being here then perhaps this is not the place for you.  

OTOH if there are rules that are broken or people who are breaking rules here and attacking others then that is a different matter altogether.  I didn't see anything that resembled that nor have there been any claims to that effect.


This is entirely the issue at hand.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 15, 2006, 10:18 PM
It amazes me how this issue has prompted such venom and animosity.  For the record, I have no problem with those who choose to stay at home.  Much good can be accomplished therein.

I have a simple suggestion which can help alleviate some of the tensions here.  I propose "ignore" functionality be enabled, if possible.  Personally, I have seldom found the need to use it on other forums, since few people really inflame my wrath on a regular basis.  Since some people here seem to have a problem with two posters, perhaps they would be best-served to have an option to ignore them.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 10:36 PM
Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Since this was adressed to me, I'll speak to it.


Actually, it wasn't.  It as ABOUT you, not addressed to you.


Well, close enough.

Quote

Maybe... maybe not... but your style of fork-tongues responses to people on occasion dictates otherwise.  Just as mine does.  I do it, so I know what it looks like TB.


I may have thought Christine and BQ were one and the same for about two seconds, but do you honestly think I believe BQ is SUE?

Quote
Quote from: "typhonblue"
As for yaoi(boy-on-boy anime)... who the fuck cares? Me and half the female population of Asia. It was first brought up by the people on ifeminism who, apparently, read my livejournal and wanted a way to discredit me.


Thus the reason I have never brought it up prior to this discussion.  I really dont care, but I do find it offensive.  Why?  Who the fuck cares why..


Riiight. And you bring it up in an attempt to justify banning me?

Er... not that I don't admire the audacious meanness! :D

Quote
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Let everyone dump out their porn lockers and see what we find. :) .


Touche!  :-)


Indeed. I wonder how much lesbian porn we might find... :) Incidentally are you into that sort of thing?

Quote

Never said you were, just said that MY OPINION is that you seem to be obsessed with boy on boy and male homosexual porn.  I never have asked, nor want to know why you find object and penile penetration into a mans ass stimulating.  What ever floats your boat I say.....


It's the fangirl thing. I have to have *one* excrutiatingly girly trait and it's being a yaoi bitch. *OMG!HesSoKAWAII!!!Squee!!!!!!!PINKHEARTS!!!BUBBLES!!!*

BTW, it's just a stereotype that the only thing two men can do is anal sex. Although Japanese women seem to love teh buttsexxor, so what can you do? Hopefully when the western yaoi market starts gaining steam they'll consider moving beyond that particular trope.

Quote
Maybe it is because you secretly find gratification in the image.  A sort of control thing.  Seeing a man in a position of being dominated, especially if it's humiliating.  The more the better.  Young boys in homosexual acts, anime or not, is pedophelia to me but maybe you are just a closet feminist that likes the idea of a man getting a huge dildo or a tenticle ladened arm in the ass... THAT'LL SHOW HIM!  who knows...


Hmm... that's a possible interpretation. Except that this particular type of story seems to come out of male-dominant, male-centric societies. Asia has a centuries long history of it.

As for the tentacle thing... are you familiar with tentacle hentai? The more common version seems to involve women and is marketed for men. For some reason tentacles are popular in Japan; I once saw a centuries old woodblock of a fisher's wife being ravaged by an octapus. Weird. Doesn't do anything for me.

I don't know why yaoi rings a bell for me. It might be my upbringing. Saudi imported lots of asian culture so I grew up on asian cartoons(and thus homoerotic fanservice for girls.) Plus, in Saudi, any heterosexual interaction, including what would be, to our eyes, the most innocent touching was censored while men would kiss and walk hand in hand in the street, so maybe it's just a familiarity thing.

If I knew what got me into it I think I'd have a better idea of why Asian women like it so much. Although I don't know why it's becoming so popular in the west. That's a mystery to me.

As for it being "pedophilia". Boy-on-boy is an euphamism, like girl-on-girl. Everything licensed in the states involves individuals 18+. I prefer 25+. In fact my current fav is a story about a couple, 28 and 36.

Actually, I should also point out that there is also shounen-ai that isn't any more sexual then a sweet valley high story.

Quote
In case you didn't know, that last para was an example of a fork-tongued post to garner a reactionary response.....

TMOTS


I thought it was just your thoughts on something you don't have much information on. I can see why you think what you do, and heck, I bet that's a rationale behind why some women like it. (Possibly western women.)

Sorry about the off-topicness.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 15, 2006, 10:40 PM
Here is the private email I sent to Dr. E today.   An email that was written with the intent that it be for his eyes only.  I wrote this in response to a reply Dr. E sent me.   He was very nice, and asked me to reconsider leaving, and asked me for my thoughts on how to recruit more women to the MRM.  

These are the musings of a SAHM, who supports (or did support) the MRM.   Unedited.  And anything else I've sent privately I will gladly stand by if published.   I'd love to see other peoples private, unedited emails.   Right.  Enjoy.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. E - yes, I did overreact.   I was angry.   I apologize for that.  It didn't last long - I'm no longer angry.  But my feelings of alienation remain.  And I think what I wrote to you sounded like I felt victimized.   And I don't.  But I strongly feel the bias on your site towards SAHM's is real and it's unfair.  I realize people are entitled to their opinions, but I don't see the justice in blanket disparaging remarks about an entire segment of the female population, especially when expressed to a member, or members of that population.  

And I know I told tb to go fuck herself.  That was most unprofessional, and most unladylike of me.    I should have ignored the remark, but I think I can argue that I meant "herself" in the general sense, and I wasn't insulting her personally.   I was talking about a subset of the female population, to which she may or may not belong...   I was using "tb" in the global sense, nothing personal......   You know I'm tongue in cheek here, but my point is that couching insults under the cloak of  "I don't mean you personally" is disingenuous.   That's like saying, "Jews are dishonest, and they'll do anything to make a buck.   A Jew will sell his own mother to make a buck.  But, of course, Goldblatt, I don't mean anything personal to you here".    Anyway, she didn't upset me more than momentarily, and I got great satisfaction from the warning.  Thank you for that.   ;)

No, the problem runs deeper.

After I left, you asked at least one poster to quote specific comments.   That's a fair request, and even though it was not directed at me, I will respond by quoting you a segment of an email I sent to Al this morning.   I like him very much, by the way.  This is not his fault, and I feel bad that my offer to help him with his site got caught up in this.   I'll reconsider that.  I know he's stressed out about it and I support what he's doing.  And anyway, I was knee deep in it after half a ream of paper and a whole ink cartridge day before yesterday.   Before the proverbial shit hit the proverbial fan.

But here's the excerpt I'll quote to you from my email to him this morning:
------------------------------------------------------
Just a small sampling of gems from that thread:

"I haven't noticed a great deal of concern from the top of the food chain of Feminist privilege (SAHM's) over fairness or justice "

"a man knows that he would be destroying his life if he let himself be supported by a woman.  "

"I think you'd be swimming against the tide trying to convince SAHM's that the MRM is worthy of their time and effort. "

"i mean, SAHMs can think. but they are apt to choose not to.. because they want those things they pick up from the media to be true. ooh we are oppressed! yes its true! men are useless! yes its true!"

"SAHMs could benefit their families greatly.....  Do they? Most, no."

"About the best I can say is ... no thanks, Ms. Homemaker. I don't want you and I don't respect you."

"Maybe you and Hugo can even fuck some of them if you play your cards right.   Unfortunately, I'm not going to be backing you if you find out about divorce court with a housewife. I've seriously had enough of trying to support people like that."

And here's the one, Al, which ended my desire to continue being involved in the MRM:

"I believe that the priority ranking for women is self-preservation first, then offspring, followed by spouse. You almost never see women sacrificing themselves for others the way men do; men will literally sacrifice their lives for others. In my experience women won't, they're very much about self-preservation first. Thus, I believe that when recruiting SAHMs to the MRM we need to highlight what's in it for them."

And you want to know who said that?   Mr. Bad.   Someone I like and respect.  I ask you, in the interest of fairness, to put yourself in my position for just a minute, and ponder what he's saying here.   Women are all about self-preservation, what's "in it for them".   In order to recruit me to the MRM, one needs to focus on what's in it for me.   That, as I hope you will see, is not only complete bullshit, it's the most insulting line of reasoning I've ever read on this site.   And I've read some really insulting stuff, Al.
----------------------------------------------------

Those are my examples, Dr. E, and there have been more as the thread continued, but I haven't cataloged them.   And I ignored tb's posts entirely.    I don't believe in saving ammunition - it only leads to guns being fired.   But I have been seriously upset by this thread - and that's unusual for me.   And Galt doesn't call them "gold diggers" btw.   He calls them homemakers, or women.   There's a huge distinction.  

I have to confess to not being "in the mood" at the moment to discuss how the MRM can reach out to women.   I will think about it though, after a bit.   I will say however, that some simple semantic changes would be a huge help.   Try replacing "women" with "feminists",  or "SAHM's" with "gold-diggers" and you'll get a much better response.   There are huge numbers of women who think the feminazis are a major source of evil in our society.   The fact that you are alienating all of us but one on your site, might be cause for reflection.  You asked.  

It's small wonder you attract few women to your cause.   You really want my advice?  Listen to BQ.   She says she knows you personally.  Don't let that resource get away.   You want to think big picture?   Listen to her and people like her.  She's the mainstream gal, she likes you, other people like her, and people like her are who you want supporting your movement if you're ever going to capture a wider audience.   The people who are going to help you are the people that mainstream women are drawn to.   People mainstream women can identify with.   You know what I'm saying, and I know you have deep personal friendships, and that's fine.   But you want to think strategy, then think strategy.   Your friends can work on what they're good at, but beware of letting personal relationships drive away huge assets and obscure the big picture.  What you have to fight is the perception that your movement is fringe, extremist.   Again, you asked.  

One example:   You said in your email that the SAHP does her/his share and more.    I would have loved to have seen you say that in the thread in question, in defense of SAHP's.   Your message board is a huge asset.  That's how I found the MRM -  your board.   Be mindful of that.   It's your public face.  Treat it as such.   Just a thought.

And intellectualism will not help your cause.   What you need is to appeal to mainstream, everyday people.   Those of you behind the movement may indeed be intellectuals, but if you ask the rank and file population if they identify with this sort of person, they will overwhelmingly say no.   The masses are turned off by the elite.  So, be elite, but spin your cause so the average joe or josephine can get it and identify with you.  Put people front and center with whom the average person can identify.   Frame your arguments with justice as your moral backing.    Everyday people, SAHM's included, respond to injustice.  We don't like it.   Capitalize on that.  Despite Mr. Bad's comment, SAHM's are no different than any other segment of the population in terms of hating injustice.   People of goodwill hate injustice.   Work that.  Lobby them.  

Americans in general identify with the individual story - the person to whom much injustice has been done.   Publicize individual stories of father's rights gone horribly wrong, but be careful not to place blame on women.  Blame the system that needs to be changed.   Blame legislation.   Put blame on an entity people are detached from.   One they can revile and lobby, not one they identify with personally.

Put people front and center to whom everyday people can relate.  Then appeal to their sense of fairness.   Hire a campaign chairperson who knows what the hell they're doing when it comes to image and spin.   Because those are your gaping holes.  Image and spin.   You'll never defeat your enemy by driving potential recruits into her camp.   You must pursue them, and win them, and herd them into your fold.  You must convince the public at large that you represent what's good for everyone.   Attack ads won't work.   Positive framing of your issues in terms people can understand and relate to, and support, is the only way you will succeed.   People are looking for positive values they can support.  You represent that.  Your task is to get people to see why your issues matter, why rectifying your issues will better society.   Being positive is key.  Teach them why supporting your cause will make the world a better place.   People want the world to be a better place.   That's the big picture, E.

For someone who wasn't "in the mood", I sure did a lot of talking !  Sorry.  As my husband is fond of saying, ask a woman a question, then grab a beer and settle in to listen to the marathon.....

I didn't know you were a SAHD.   I think that's wonderful.  

You can exhale now.  I'm done.

Take care,
(name withheld)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 15, 2006, 10:51 PM
Quote
I once saw a centuries old woodblock of a fisher's wife being ravaged by an octapus. Weird.


Hahahahaha. Funny folk, the Japanese. Anyway, its high time the discrimination regarding sea life was exposed. :D
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 11:04 PM
Quote from: "Sir Percy"
Quote
I once saw a centuries old woodblock of a fisher's wife being ravaged by an octapus. Weird.


Hahahahaha. Funny folk, the Japanese. Anyway, its high time the discrimination regarding sea life was exposed. :D


I think you'll be pleased to note that the relations were depicted as consensual. The reputation of octopi everywhere was not impuned.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 15, 2006, 11:30 PM
Quote
"I believe that the priority ranking for women is self-preservation first, then offspring, followed by spouse. You almost never see women sacrificing themselves for others the way men do; men will literally sacrifice their lives for others. In my experience women won't, they're very much about self-preservation first. Thus, I believe that when recruiting SAHMs to the MRM we need to highlight what's in it for them."


The Royal Lifeboat Association in the UK has Grace Darling as a 'mascot'. Grace, a young woman, rowed a dingy back and forth in a gale, rough seas, to rescue the sailors from a shipwreck. There are numerous examples of women who have put their lives at risk, sacrificing their lives, assisting others who were not kin. There are numerous examples too of cowardice amongst men.

Wild, prejudiced generalisations such as quoted do us no good at all.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 15, 2006, 11:43 PM
I find myself siding with Christiane in the general thrust of this thread - regarding SAHMs.

I have argued before that marriage today is too great a risk for men as the social systems are stacked against them. 50% of marriages fail. Divorce is initiated by 70% to 80% women. Thats, conservatively, a 35% chance, 1 in 3, that a man is going to get screwed. It is worse than russian roulette.

But it also means that 50% of marriages endure. Many if not most will be of SAHMs raising the kids in a home, warm or struggling. These are potential allies. 'Woo' has connotations, admittedly, but education and persuasion with facts about the destruction of the society that used to nurture their SAMH choice may well bring them on board.

It is women who have generally let the situation develop so badly, along with men who wish to gain societal control. It is women who are needed to reverse the damage. We need women in our ranks. We need battalions of women. As Christiane says, we need to find a way to bring them in and accomodate them, not drive good women away.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 15, 2006, 11:50 PM
TB:
Quote
I think you'll be pleased to note that the relations were depicted as consensual. The reputation of octopi everywhere was not impuned.


Consensual? Or suckered in?

And what was the gender of the octopus? Maybe a lesbian? Maybe it was a dressing-up fantasy game. Maybe we should seek Devia's input. This new addition to the thread has legs!
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 11:55 PM
Quote from: "Sir Percy"
But it also means that 50% of marriages endure. Many if not most will be of SAHMs raising the kids in a home, warm or struggling. These are potential allies.


So many, if not most, of divorced families are dual income?

I looked up some stats on divorce. They're Canadian stats but I think they might apply:

Less Likely to Divorce
presence of children

More Likely to Divorce
lower income
educated parents
presence of step children
age gap between parents
if parents were separated before
young at time of marriage
child out of wedlock then marry
second marriage

I guess "educated parents" could mean that dual income earners are more likely to divorce, but that seems to conflict with "lower income."

Hmm...

http://www.consultmcgregor.com/PDFs/research/changing%20family%20demographics.pdf
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 15, 2006, 11:57 PM
Quote from: "Sir Percy"
TB:
Quote
I think you'll be pleased to note that the relations were depicted as consensual. The reputation of octopi everywhere was not impuned.


Consensual? Or suckered in?

And what was the gender of the octopus? Maybe a lesbian? Maybe it was a dressing-up fantasy game. Maybe we should seek Devia's input. This new addition to the thread has legs!


Do octopi have a gender? I figured it was a switch hitter. Seemed pretty flexible to me.

(BTW, loved the "suckered in" bit. :D)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 16, 2006, 12:05 AM
Quote from: "Sir Percy"
TB:
Quote
I think you'll be pleased to note that the relations were depicted as consensual. The reputation of octopi everywhere was not impuned.


Consensual? Or suckered in?

And what was the gender of the octopus? Maybe a lesbian? Maybe it was a dressing-up fantasy game. Maybe we should seek Devia's input. This new addition to the thread has legs!


I had no ink ling. Thought I'd been squeezed out so was keeping my beak shut.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 16, 2006, 12:12 AM
Quote
Less Likely to Divorce
presence of children

More Likely to Divorce
lower income
educated parents
presence of step children
age gap between parents
if parents were separated before
young at time of marriage
child out of wedlock then marry
second marriage


Doesn't allow much insight, does it.

Quote
Sir Percy wrote:
But it also means that 50% of marriages endure. Many if not most will be of SAHMs raising the kids in a home, warm or struggling. These are potential allies.


So many, if not most, of divorced families are dual income?


Your conclusion - question, doesn't follow from my statement TB. I was being broad and fuzzy as I do not have a firm set of stats to make it any clearer or more precise. But my thrust is valid, nontheless. Many intact marriages will have SAHMs raising children. These woman are potential allies.

The 'educated' bit, too, is not specific enough to draw a conclusion. Much of what passes for education is indoctrination.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Daymar on Jun 16, 2006, 12:19 AM
Uh, for what it's worth Christiane, I've liked all of your posts that I've read (I didn't make it past the first page of this thread though). I don't have a problem with SAHMs, I have a problem with the power of the divorce courts, and if you think about what some other people have said you can see they're basically saying the same thing.

Do you really think you should decide to not support the MRM based on what a few angry posters have to say on an internet board? I know I've come here with some distorted ideas before. But it shouldn't be about supporting the MRAs or not, it should be about whether you support the issues.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 16, 2006, 01:33 AM
Quote
Both of the posters they are complaining about have, in one way or another apologized for inadvertently hurting feelings and extended an olive branch. Instead the ones who are leaving (or who claim to have already left and came back here apparently just to rub it in - I speak of AGM here - ) have for the most part refused to acknowledge the apologies nor acceeded to any misunderstandings on their part of this argument. Posting here sholdn't be based on popularity of one's opinions, and moderators shouldn't be coerced into acting against people who are perceived by some to have done wrong, esp when those who complain neither can point out where the rules were broken nor how moderation should be fixed to address their complaints.


Well said BaltimoreMan.

Apologies have been given, and there has been many misunderstandings here on both sides - one that particularly rankles me is that TB was talking about SAHM's in general who unilaterally decide to be SAHMs yet certain posters took it so personally.  Why is this been dragged out by those who say they are leaving?

I have had disagreements here.  I remember one thread where it was agreed by 3 posters that Thai women were 'loose women' and should be avoided at all costs based on one single anecdotal experience that happened in the 70s.  So 30,000,000+ women were trashed in a few posts (which is a wildly inaccurate portrayal of Thai women).  Anyway, BFD.  A disagreement - I'm not going to look for public succour about it (hmm, this paragraph notwithstanding! 8) )

Posters should be big enough to take the lumps and criticism as well as the praise and friendship.  

Sorry to see such nice people leave, but hey - is this going to be a place where you fear causing offence? If so, you'll see even more people leave!
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 16, 2006, 02:42 AM
I will be out of town today and will be back late tonight.  I will likely not have access to a computer and will have to wait until tonight to read and respond on this thread.  Please keep things civil.

E
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 03:20 AM
"The Long Drawn-Out Goodbye"

A tragedy in four acts

Highlights include:

Drama, drama and more drama!
Attempts at behind-the-scene manipulation
Shifting alliances
Attempts at shaming - just like real life!

Coming to a theater near you.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Percy on Jun 16, 2006, 03:57 AM
Quote
Attempts at shaming - just like real life!


Virtual reality, too, it seems.

Come on Galt. Let go of the bone, there's a good dog.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Wookie on Jun 16, 2006, 05:36 AM
Just finished reading through all this (The joy of redundancy!)  and felt that as a semi-regular poster I should give my view on the subject.

What I have seen is a few posters talking past each other, and a problem that derives from problems with terminology.

Galt, has strong points applied to some women (and you can argue some men) but I must admit that sometimes his writing could be seen as generalizations, Sorry mate but that's how it read.

I also feel that we all should be careful to avoid taking things that are written on a discussion board too personally, these are peoples opinions and sometimes peoples opinions do not sit well with others and can feel like an attack. CM, Christiane and TBQ you are all extremely valuable to the MRM, please do not allow disagreements within the movement to drive you away, it would be such a waste.

Dr E, I personally from reading Typnon comment to Christiane, about living off men as a personal attack and sorry TB, I feel that you meant it that way!.

I suppose now I should actually give my opinion on the issue.

I guess I will have to put some cream on my sore ass from sitting on the fence on this issue, but to me it is clearly not black and white but different shades.

IMHO, in the first years of a Childs life there should be a parent at home, be that male or female. I feel that a role of the MRM is to get out there and speak to men and women and encourage that this should be a joint decision. We need to get the message in the media and schools that tells boys and men that they can perform this role and it does not make them any less of a man.

We need to make it clear that childcare is not the reserve of just women, this will free both men and women (as I am sure that their are many women currently performing this role, that don't enjoy it but feel that they should do it)

We should avoid attacking individuals personal choices, but at the same time raise awareness, that is all we can really do unless we go down the road of feminism and start dictating that laws should be created etc.

We need to make men aware that they do have this choice, but it's not an easy one, as at this stage in our societies development, there are still those that will frown at it. We need to change public perception so those men that choose this role do not feel bad.

I for one will never keep a woman as a housewife, I do feel that this role is redundant in our society as long as there are no children; hell I would rather pay a cleaner.

We as we are doing still need to keep banging away at the social injustices that our in our legal system towards men, their children and divorce, this is where the problems arise.

My mum was a SAHM when I was a child, she was not a parasite, she did not take advantage of my dad to get her own way and he was not a oppressor, I believe that the majority of marrages fall into this category

My Sister is currently a SAHM with 3 children under 5, her husband works 70hrs a week, both have it hard, but they are doing what is right for their family. He can earn more than my sister, and there does need to be a parent at home. She is not a parasite and he is not an oppressor.

Well that's my stream of consciousness.

Wookie
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Wookie on Jun 16, 2006, 05:37 AM
removed double posting
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: AliciaGoMavs on Jun 16, 2006, 05:42 AM
Quote from: "BaltimoreMan"
Quote from: "AliciaGoMavs"
Wow.  Very interesting.  

I check this site from time to time, but I can't stay here for extended periods of time, because it is not long before some thread is posted that says "Is rape all that bad?" or something else equally stupid.  

Don't get me wrong, I like most of you guys, but imagine how welcome any of you fellas would feel at a NOW convention, and you get an idea on how it feels to be a woman here for any extended period of time.  

I still say as I've said all along, that the hateful, mysogynistic members among your group are going to be the death of the MRM just as the hateful, misandrystic members killed feminism.  But helping you see that is not my responsibility to bear, it is yours.


"hateful misandrystic members" killed feminism? Then why do we have VAWA, why does NOW still have a special place among Democrats in congress, why are women's studies programs proliferating worldwide, and why did Dworkin and McKinnon help write so many of our "sexual harrasment" laws?

The last time you gave advice you came off as arrogant and because of the tone you adopted (or it was assumed you had adapted) you got nowhere in your efforts. I see you haven't learned from that mistake.

I'd also love you to list some current posting ( by that I mean posters here who've posted over the last six months)  members that you think are misogynistic, but quite frankly I don't think you have the courage to do so. I've been reading this forum for several years now, and while I have seen individual statements from posters that have crossed the line into prejudice I've seen very few that have crossed the line into misogyny. Those members aren't here now to my knowledge.

Or perhaps me and you define misogyny somewhat differently. In any case, I sure hope disagreeing with you doesn't give you the vapors. I'd like some specifics into how Dr E should moderate; at least BQ (whom I've always greatly admired and respected ) is game, how about you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You want PROOF of this board's mysogyny? You want proof????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Okay, okay... I found this hilarious for this reason:

Imagine you folks at a NOW convention and pointing out the misandry of the feminists there.  Then imagine showing them your proof of the abuses that feminism has foisted on society and the harm and damage that it has caused (for example, the items you listed above).  

Now, in all seriousness, do the feminists at NOW believe that they're misandrists?

Hell effin' no!

And if you show them your examples of how feminism has abused our society, do you think that your proof will open their eyes to it?  Do you think that they'll suddenly say: "Oh NO!  What have we DONE???   What stupid idiots we are!!!  We have to correct all the damage we've caused by our careless actions!!"

If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Why do you think that these feminists won't see their misandry?  Why do you think that their eyes won't be opened to the damage that their actions and policies have cause, even if offered proof of that damage?  

Once you find the answer to that, then you'll know why I can't show you this board's past examples of misogyny, and why offering proof of that misogyny is a pointless exercise that will accomplish nothing.

"Proof" he says.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 05:51 AM
Quote from: "Wookie"
Galt, has strong points applied to some women (and you can argue some men) but I must admit that sometimes his writing could be seen as generalizations, Sorry mate but that's how it read.


You're probably right about that, and I have to watch the generalization.

In another sense, though, I'm thinking about the STRUCTURE itself today in the case of a man who works full-time and a woman without small children, or let's say without children at all to have a clear-cut case, who stays home. From that point of view, it's not generalizing with regard to the specific women who do that.

If you think about it, that's precisely the way you are thinking when you say:

Quote
I for one will never keep a woman as a housewife, I do feel that this role is redundant in our society as long as there are no children; hell I would rather pay a cleaner.


That's also a sweeping statement, but it involves a criticism of the STRUCTURE today ("redundant").
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 16, 2006, 05:57 AM
Alicia, you're comparing apples with......Platapusses here.  You couldn't compare more different sets of people.  

Calling this board largely 'misogynistic' is a big call.  You need to back it up with evidence, and not just laugh about it.  I think your taking disagreement too personally here, and ramping up the heat with your outbursts.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 16, 2006, 06:06 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "Wookie"
I for one will never keep a woman as a housewife, I do feel that this role is redundant in our society as long as there are no children; hell I would rather pay a cleaner.


That's also a sweeping statement, but it involves a criticism of the STRUCTURE today ("redundant").


Of course its a sweeping statement. He even offered to actually pay the cleaner.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 16, 2006, 06:06 AM
I would not have come back at all except I was asked by a poster for some help.

I have publicly thanked TB for her attempt at understanding, and her consessions. It was indeed appreciated.

When ever third thread contains something concerning SAHMs or housewives, it got difficult for me to ignore. It was a contant thorn. I have heard similar things from black people, that each thing would be ignorable,  but day after day, time after time, it builds. I tried to ignore it, and after a while it was too hard for me. That was my failing. I wish I was stronger.

I could try to take it from TBs explaination that it is the unapreciated privilage, not the mutual relationship she abhores, but I do not really believe that based on her writings over the years. Galt said in effect a similar thing over a year ago but it changed nothing. I think they both feel SAHMs are less intelligent, inferior, and parasitic. Knowing that, every time it is mentioned the wrath flows through the screen, by two people who have no personal reason to be so reactive.( I guess if it were a man who was raped in court by his SAHW than I would certainly understand the anger and ignore the poster's ire. )

My issue was not for the topic at hand. I will argue it all day long. It was for the dripping contempt I was feeling, and the tag teaming. Hell, when TBs exact words come out of Galt's mouth, then I can see the pack mentality has taken over.

Is there anything to be done? No. Censorship is not the answer, the answer is to just go. While I do not think anything needs to be done, sometimes things need to be said.

All insults are felt. One can or cannot ignore anything. So it ends up being a slippery slope of what is insulting. Rephrasing an insult to make it not tchnically a personal attack does not make it less an insult. Saying it about all the group does not make it less insulting. Denying it is an insult does not make it less insulting.


I made the point that my leaving was my choice. Lets not pretend that it was for any other reason than for two posters.

 I do not expect Dr E to do anything about the subject.  I just wanted to help him be aware of what was going on. I like Dr E, met him in person and really respect the man. Even if I cannot be here, if my imput may help him at some point then I will give it.

As he continues to see female posters unable to cope with things, and TB remains the only regular woman on the board who is welcomed (Terry is very welcome but from what little I see does not post often), then perhaps the pattern I am seeing will become apparent to others.

Maybe it is just a rough place for women. By when the woman are die- hard MRAs who agree philisophically with the MRM, and they are still not able to cope, then maybe there is another issue.

Anyways, it sounds like I have said (several times) all I came here to say.

Jen
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: BRIAN on Jun 16, 2006, 06:08 AM
I gave up on this thread a long while ago. It degenerated pretty quick to angry recriminatins and circular argument days ago.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: PowerMan72 on Jun 16, 2006, 06:18 AM
Quote
"The Long Drawn-Out Goodbye"

A tragedy in four acts

Highlights include:

Drama, drama and more drama!
Attempts at behind-the-scene manipulation
Shifting alliances
Attempts at shaming - just like real life!

Coming to a theater near you.


:x

That's about right.  Those of you that are leaving, please get on with it.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: neonsamurai on Jun 16, 2006, 06:26 AM
Quote from: "BRIAN"
I gave up on this thread a long while ago. It degenerated pretty quick to angry recriminatins and circular argument days ago.


Tell me about it Brian. I couldn't even get any group-hug-action going  :(

Wookie pretty much summed everything up with his post  (sorry to hear about the redundancy mate), and half the problem is that things that flash up on screen are open to interpretation by whoever's reading it.

There are a few posters who's posts I don't like to read, or disagree with and from time to I'll chip in and tell them what I think. To their credit they normally act in a decent way and put forward a proper argument why I'm wrong. That's the nature of the internet. The guys (read men) whos views I really found offensive don't post here anymore because they were either asked to leave or banned. Anyway, 'tis a shame folks want to leave and I'll miss 'em.

Anyway back to more important issues:

AliciaGoMavs said:
Quote
If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.


A bridge you say? In Brooklyn? This could be the water-spanning structure I've been waiting for. Do you accept American Express?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 06:30 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Hell, when TBs exact words come out of Galt's mouth, then I can see the pack mentality has taken over.


I'll bet you didn't see her lips moving, though.

She's getting pretty good at the ventriloquism thing.

Sometimes I just "channel" her in a trance.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 16, 2006, 06:34 AM
That makes you the dummy? Nah, you certainly are not a dummy. You are a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them.

Now channeling I can buy. You really should buy yourself a wrist watch, it would be a lot safer.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 06:35 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
That makes you the dummy?


I knew I was setting myself up for that - but I decided to take the risk anyway because I thought the "lips moving" thing was funny.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Wookie on Jun 16, 2006, 07:05 AM
Galt wrote:
Quote
If you think about it, that's precisely the way you are thinking when you say:

Quote:
I for one will never keep a woman as a housewife, I do feel that this role is redundant in our society as long as there are no children; hell I would rather pay a cleaner.  


That's also a sweeping statement, but it involves a criticism of the STRUCTURE today ("redundant").


I see your point, but I would not refer to this type of woman as a SAHM, and I feel that you would not find much disagreement from the majority of women about this in today's society.

Yes there are many marrages where this arrangement happens, but I feel that it is something that is dieing out, in the mainstream, and is manily practiced amoungst that wealthy, who are able to do this.

But I am also of the opinion that men are fully formed adults that are able to make their own decisions about life and if some dumb smuck has a trophy wife like this thats his problem.

We have to remember that there is still a large contingent of men that "will not see a wife of theirs working" it could be said that it is a status symbol, "my wife doesn't have to work, I earn enought to keep both of us"

I say more fool them.

As I said b4 it is about educating men that they do not need to shoulder the burden of being the single wage earner and that they are not bad for telling the little woman "Get a bloody job or get out"

Neon wrote:

Quote
(sorry to hear about the redundancy mate),


No great loss mate, give me a chance to watch the World Cup, good timing if you think about it  :?

Wookie
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 16, 2006, 07:28 AM
Quote from: "Wookie"
No great loss mate, give me a chance to watch the World Cup, good timing if you think about it  :?
Wookie

Argentina looking very ominous. Three - nil v Serbia with thirty to go.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 16, 2006, 07:29 AM
Quote from: "AliciaGoMavs"
Quote from: "BaltimoreMan"
Quote from: "AliciaGoMavs"
Wow.  Very interesting.  

I check this site from time to time, but I can't stay here for extended periods of time, because it is not long before some thread is posted that says "Is rape all that bad?" or something else equally stupid.  

Don't get me wrong, I like most of you guys, but imagine how welcome any of you fellas would feel at a NOW convention, and you get an idea on how it feels to be a woman here for any extended period of time.  

I still say as I've said all along, that the hateful, mysogynistic members among your group are going to be the death of the MRM just as the hateful, misandrystic members killed feminism.  But helping you see that is not my responsibility to bear, it is yours.


"hateful misandrystic members" killed feminism? Then why do we have VAWA, why does NOW still have a special place among Democrats in congress, why are women's studies programs proliferating worldwide, and why did Dworkin and McKinnon help write so many of our "sexual harrasment" laws?

The last time you gave advice you came off as arrogant and because of the tone you adopted (or it was assumed you had adapted) you got nowhere in your efforts. I see you haven't learned from that mistake.

I'd also love you to list some current posting ( by that I mean posters here who've posted over the last six months)  members that you think are misogynistic, but quite frankly I don't think you have the courage to do so. I've been reading this forum for several years now, and while I have seen individual statements from posters that have crossed the line into prejudice I've seen very few that have crossed the line into misogyny. Those members aren't here now to my knowledge.

Or perhaps me and you define misogyny somewhat differently. In any case, I sure hope disagreeing with you doesn't give you the vapors. I'd like some specifics into how Dr E should moderate; at least BQ (whom I've always greatly admired and respected ) is game, how about you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You want PROOF of this board's mysogyny? You want proof????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Okay, okay... I found this hilarious for this reason:

Imagine you folks at a NOW convention and pointing out the misandry of the feminists there.  Then imagine showing them your proof of the abuses that feminism has foisted on society and the harm and damage that it has caused (for example, the items you listed above).  

Now, in all seriousness, do the feminists at NOW believe that they're misandrists?

Hell effin' no!

And if you show them your examples of how feminism has abused our society, do you think that your proof will open their eyes to it?  Do you think that they'll suddenly say: "Oh NO!  What have we DONE???   What stupid idiots we are!!!  We have to correct all the damage we've caused by our careless actions!!"

If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Why do you think that these feminists won't see their misandry?  Why do you think that their eyes won't be opened to the damage that their actions and policies have cause, even if offered proof of that damage?  

Once you find the answer to that, then you'll know why I can't show you this board's past examples of misogyny, and why offering proof of that misogyny is a pointless exercise that will accomplish nothing.

"Proof" he says.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


Wow, it's another totally original post from Alicia calling unspecified members misogynists.  How do you keep coming up with all this new material?

/sarcasm
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 16, 2006, 07:51 AM
Quote from: "gwallan"
Quote from: "Wookie"
No great loss mate, give me a chance to watch the World Cup, good timing if you think about it  :?
Wookie

Argentina looking very ominous. Three - nil v Serbia with thirty to go.

Whew. Six - nil. Scary. Argentina are an effin good thing at this stage.

Sorry guys I'm just trying to get this thread off topic - it needs it.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Wookie on Jun 16, 2006, 07:59 AM
gwallan wrote:
Quote
Whew. Six - nil. Scary. Argentina are an effin good thing at this stage.


Shit,  :shock:

I saw the first half but have missed the 2nd.

Oh well England beat them 3-2 last time we played, like that means shit the way England are currently playing.

One team to avoid I think. Or maybe they have peeked to soon? (keep telling yourself that wookie!)

Wookie
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 16, 2006, 07:59 AM
This really is too bad.   A quick check this morning reveals that one of Galt's posts from last night has disappeared !   Must have been a system glitch or something, eh Galt?  I'll be glad to lend you a hand here, my friend, and repost it for you.   It was publicly posted for all to see and quote from,  and I'm sure you'll appreciate my help in keeping it so.  

Quote
Galt
Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 5520

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:25 am    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christiane,

To be fair, Dr. Evil didn't make any e-mail public.

As far as I know, he only stated the same conclusion that I came to after seeing the interaction here. Something that was a bit obvious. Dr. Evil hasn't sent me any PMs or e-mails lately. If it helps any, I was just about to say the same thing he did.

By the way, is it true that you offered to help Al, and then you rescinded a few days later?

What does helping him have to do with the dispute here AND, most importantly, what justifies such a superficial reversal??

If your answer is that you didn't have *any* idea about this man-stuff, why would you go into an obligation, as an adult, with so little responsibility?

I'm honestly curious what that's all about.  


That's better.  Whew !  You're welcome, Galt.   Glad I could help out.  And it really is sweet of you to be curious about my level of responsibility as an adult.   I appreciate your concern more than I can say, Galt.   Thanks !

My response to your post still seems to be there.   Curious.   It's still right after where yours was.   The glitch must have been a one post sort of thing....     :shock:

Quote
Christiane
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 194
Location: Ohio
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:41 am    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Christiane emailed you today and complained about her treatment on this board.



That's very specific, and could only have been garnered from my private email to him. I shared a brief part of my email to TMOTS with Dr. E, in a private communication.

And I am helping TMOTS with his website. I've gone through half a ream of paper and a whole ink cartridge so far. I've also sent in a sizable donation. Not that it's any business of yours.

What are you doing to help in a tangible way, Galt?



Hey - there's a new game show being launched here Galt and I think you should check it out.   I think you'd be a great contestant.   The show is called "Delete The Question".   It sounds really fun and easy.   Here's how it works:   The contestant asks a question, and if he or she doesn't like the answer, the contestant just deletes the question !  The first episode was way fun - I think you'd be really good at it !!!     :lol:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 08:03 AM
*yawn*
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 08:14 AM
Looks like I made a new friend.

I KNEW I shouldn't have put off buying that Dale Carnegie book.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 16, 2006, 08:20 AM
Christiane, if this sort of melodrama is going to be typical of your time posting here, why should we want you to stay?  Believe it or not, anti-feminism will go on without your manifestly conditional "support."  If you believe in justice, then you will fight for it whether in a larger group or on your own.  No group responds well to "you had better change and you had better woo me or else I am leaving."  People have been on their hands and knees begging you to stay and you find nothing better to do than bait Galt. :roll:

If he bothers you so much, ignore him.  Your worth as a person is not determined by what Galt thinks of you.  A couple of pages ago, I proposed the addition of "ignore" functionality to the message board, but it seems this reasonable proposal has been ignored in the hysterics.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 16, 2006, 08:24 AM
Quote from: "Christiane"
The show is called "Delete The Question".   It sounds really fun and easy.   Here's how it works:   The contestant asks a question, and if he or she doesn't like the answer, the contestant just deletes the question !


Some of us are playing a very similar game at the moment in another thread involving TheSage and several non-existant sexual assault victims.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 08:24 AM
Quote from: "Darth Sidious"
A couple of pages ago, I proposed the addition of "ignore" functionality to the message board, but it seems this reasonable proposal has been ignored in the hysterics.


Actually, we had that functionality on this board a couple, or a few, years ago.

It turned out to be even worse, because there was infighting about who was being put on "Ignore" and who wasn't.

Some people would say stuff like: "If you say that again, you're going on Ignore".

Dr. Evil quietly changed it back at one point, I don't even remember when.

I was only on Ignore from one person (Amber) if I remember right.  I didn't have anyone on Ignore.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 16, 2006, 08:36 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Actually, we had that functionality on this board a couple, or a few, years ago.

It turned out to be even worse, because there was infighting about who was being put on "Ignore" and who wasn't.

Some people would say stuff like: "If you say that again, you're going on Ignore".

Dr. Evil quietly changed it back at one point, I don't even remember when.

I was only on Ignore from one person (Amber) if I remember right.  I didn't have anyone on Ignore.


I think I have put a grand total of two people on ignore before on other message boards.  I did not make a show of it; I just did it.  There was even one person I took off ignore after a few weeks.

There is a real problem with people using ignore or the threat of it as a way to inflame hostilities, but it can be avoided if the moderators would disallow advertising the fact someone is going on ignore.  Such nonsense does nothing to promote sensible discussion.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 08:39 AM
Quote from: "Darth Sidious"
There is a real problem with people using ignore or the threat of it as a way to inflame hostilities, but it can be avoided if the moderators would disallow advertising the fact someone is going on ignore.  Such nonsense does nothing to promote sensible discussion.


The way it was set up here was that you got a PM when someone put you on Ignore.  That also didn't ease any tension.

I just wasn't all that enthusiastic about it when we had the functionality here.

Maybe because my motto is: "I don't get ulcers - I give them".

Umm ... I'm just kind of kidding about that.  I think.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: stands2p on Jun 16, 2006, 08:41 AM
Relative newbie that I am, I have been following with rapt attention and keeping my damned mouth shut until now.

How does an "ignore" feature work?  Can poster tell how many members have his id set on ignore?  Can he tell who they are?  Is there any recourse to being ignored?

From my admittedly inexperienced POV, ignore seems like a bad idea; the scroll wheel on my mouse makes a damned fine ignore feature already.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 08:45 AM
Quote from: "stands2p"
Relative newbie that I am, I have been following with rapt attention and keeping my damned mouth shut until now.

How does an "ignore" feature work?  Can poster tell how many members have his id set on ignore?  Can he tell who they are?  Is there any recourse to being ignored?


When you put someone on "Ignore" you don't see anything they post.  So the threads look all chopped up, because people are responding to something you don't see.  Apparently - I have never put anyone on Ignore.

I was put on Ignore, and I got a PM from that person (automatic) that she had put me on Ignore.  That's variable, I'm sure that you can adjust things as you want (i.e. that someone doesn't get a PM).

Quote
From my admittedly inexperienced POV, ignore seems like a bad idea; the scroll wheel on my mouse makes a damned fine ignore feature already.


Right.  That's what I think.

"Ignore" is also kind of a political thing to tell someone that you don't like him.  I don't even scroll past anyone, unless it's boring, I want to see what people are saying.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 16, 2006, 08:47 AM
Quote from: "stands2p"
Relative newbie that I am, I have been following with rapt attention and keeping my damned mouth shut until now.

How does an "ignore" feature work?  Can poster tell how many members have his id set on ignore?  Can he tell who they are?  Is there any recourse to being ignored?

From my admittedly inexperienced POV, ignore seems like a bad idea; the scroll wheel on my mouse makes a damned fine ignore feature already.


On two other boards I post to which have ignore features, I have an "ignore list" of people, but I have no idea who has me on ignore unless they advertise the fact.  No PM is sent.  All you have to do is click on the profile and find the appropriate link or on some boards an "ignore this user" link which is given with every post they make, and then the user will be quietly added to the ignore list.  Each time the ignored poster makes a post, the post's content is replaced by a message similar to "User X is on your ignore list, click here to unignore him."

As you said, scroll wheels can be quite effective too.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 16, 2006, 08:54 AM
Sounds like this 'Ignore' thing is the equivalent of a yellow star, worn on the right sleeve. :shock:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 16, 2006, 09:00 AM
Quote from: "Malakas"
Sounds like this 'Ignore' thing is the equivalent of a yellow star, worn on the right sleeve. :shock:


How so?  Besides, I was just making a suggestion which some might find helpful.  As I have said before, it is functionality I very rarely use.  I tend to like to read what other people have to say.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 16, 2006, 09:09 AM
Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"

I'll say this right now, if anyone should be leaving it should be Typhon.  I dislike her antics, her debating style, her apparent obsession with homosexuality (men), and her alleged preference to boy toy/boy-on-boy anime porno.  And let's not forget that little ditty implying that Christiane was TBQ.  Yes, I saw it and I am sure others did.  It is one thing to be almost certain and accuse, it's another to just make statements to create a defensive posture or "fan the fire" as you call it.  

But this is MY opinion, isn't it.  So there you have it.  Chivalry at it's best I guess.

TMOTS


Ok, E., my I offer my opinion?  I don't think that anybody should be asked or otherwise compelled to leave.   What the hell are we, a f*cking feminist site or what?

TMOTS, while I admire and respect most all of your posts, here and elsewhere, I haven't seen evidence to suggest the type of "obssession" you refer to above, so I feel the need to step in here and side with TB re. taking umbrage at that comment.  That's getting too close to personal attack for my comfort leve.  Besides, who cares what people are in to?  This goes back to the issue that is most important ot me vis-a-vis the original topic of the thread, i.e., the freedom to choose our lifestyles as we see fit without the Nanny State interfering.

All this said, I hope that we can tone down the personal offense stuff and get back the topic of the thread, i.e., the pressure on men and women to abide by various and often diametrically-oppsed  models for division of household duties, family structure, etc.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 16, 2006, 09:09 AM
Point taken, Darth.   I will refrain from the further use of melodrama.   It's not typical of me though - at least I hope not.   I don't know what got into me.      :?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 16, 2006, 09:27 AM
Quote
"'Loving' men for what they do for us isn't enough. We must love men for what we can do for them." - typhonblue


I'm quoting that off your sig line Mr. Bad.

I've actually been thinking about this statement.  It sounds good, but what does this really mean?  I'm serious now, I'm not trying to be pissy or anything.

I love my husband.   He loves me.  OK, fine.   But in asking myself "why" I love him, the answer is neither of the above choices.   I love him for who he is, his character, his personality, his soul, the basic kind of person he is.   I love him for his sense of humor, his charity, his humanity, his intellect, the list goes on and on.   I don't love him for what he does for me, I mean it's not a selfish love, and the same is true for him.

Maybe my question is more one of definition.   If you love someone for what they can do for you, that's not love.   Real love is, by definition, unselfish.

And I don't know what it means to love someone for what you can do for them.   I think loving someone, by definition, means you want to do all you can for them.   You wish the best for them.  You want to help them, be with them, protect them from pain, etc.     But that's not WHY you love them.   The opportunity or desire to do those things for someone doesn't make you love them more, it works in the reverse doesn't it?   Loving someone, really loving someone for who they are, is the source of wanting to do everything you can for them, not the other way around.  

Am I missing something?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 16, 2006, 09:32 AM
Quote from: "Sir Percy"
Quote
"I believe that the priority ranking for women is self-preservation first, then offspring, followed by spouse. You almost never see women sacrificing themselves for others the way men do; men will literally sacrifice their lives for others. In my experience women won't, they're very much about self-preservation first. Thus, I believe that when recruiting SAHMs to the MRM we need to highlight what's in it for them."


The Royal Lifeboat Association in the UK has Grace Darling as a 'mascot'. Grace, a young woman, rowed a dingy back and forth in a gale, rough seas, to rescue the sailors from a shipwreck. There are numerous examples of women who have put their lives at risk, sacrificing their lives, assisting others who were not kin. There are numerous examples too of cowardice amongst men.

Wild, prejudiced generalisations such as quoted do us no good at all.


Point taken Sir Percy, however, as you note I was generalizing.  As you and others well know, there are always exceptions to general trends.  But "wild" generalization?  I think not.

Further, I was thinking back to more recent trends when generalizing about comtemporary women's priorities and not taking into account historical events.  For example, the rescuers at the World Trade Center in NYC on 9/11.  Women? Maybe, but the general trend was overwhelmingly men - so much so that the NOW got their panties in a serious twist about it - so what the hell is wrong with noting that?  It's the truth, and I thought you were all about The Truth.  Still, as I said, there are many exceptions to general rules and I apologize if my referring to general trends without noting the notable exceptions offended anyone.  Among many others, I would cite Harriet Tubman, a tireless African American woman who risked much to save the lives of numerous other African Americans during the years the Underground Railroad was in operation.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 16, 2006, 09:35 AM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Quote
"'Loving' men for what they do for us isn't enough. We must love men for what we can do for them." - typhonblue


I'm quoting that off your sig line Mr. Bad.

I've actually been thinking about this statement.  It sounds good, but what does this really mean?  I'm serious now, I'm not trying to be pissy or anything.

I love my husband.   He loves me.  OK, fine.   But in asking myself "why" I love him, the answer is neither of the above choices.   I love him for who he is, his character, his personality, his soul, the basic kind of person he is.   I love him for his sense of humor, his charity, his humanity, his intellect, the list goes on and on.   I don't love him for what he does for me, I mean it's not a selfish love, and the same is true for him.

Maybe my question is more one of definition.   If you love someone for what they can do for you, that's not love.   Real love is, by definition, unselfish.

And I don't know what it means to love someone for what you can do for them.   I think loving someone, by definition, means you want to do all you can for them.   You wish the best for them.  You want to help them, be with them, protect them from pain, etc.     But that's not WHY you love them.   The opportunity or desire to do those things for someone doesn't make you love them more, it works in the reverse doesn't it?   Loving someone, really loving someone for who they are, is the source of wanting to do everything you can for them, not the other way around.  

Am I missing something?


Christiane,  obviously we should love and cherish our spouses and other relatives.  To me the quote refers to 'Everyman,' the anonymous, unknown man who we as a society should cherish and love as much as we do women and children.  

It's that simple, at least for me.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 09:39 AM
Maybe society today is telling women to just look out for themselves, while still upholding the old notions that men should look out for women.

Or maybe not.

But I see an almost dense attitude in a few of the feminist women who don't even consider the hypocrisy of a simultaneous "You Go Girl" attitude and a shaming of men to do more for women.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 09:44 AM
By the way, Christiane, I'm pissed at you and you're pissed at me right now.

Maybe we should both just count to ten or something; both of us lay off for a while - sometimes these things smooth out with time.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 16, 2006, 10:05 AM
Quote
Maybe society today is telling women to just look out for themselves, while still upholding the old notions that men should look out for women.

Or maybe not.

But I see an almost dense attitude in a few of the feminist women who don't even consider the hypocrisy of a simultaneous "You Go Girl" attitude and a shaming of men to do more for women.
Seems fair Galt, though some might disagree and then we'd get another 19 pages.

I don't believe 'Ignore' is a viable option because it sounds too Nazi. How about a 'My Personal Beef' (or more appropriate title) forum, where threads get moved when it's obvious that personality wars have taken over. Everybody wants to be on 'Main' because that's where the action is but important messages get lost in the in-fighting. Wading through the sh*t to find the gems is irksome for busy people.

The mods could decide when some thread has gone too far and needs to be moved. Anybody who wants to pursue a personal slight beyond a couple of posts does it in the new forum.  If they feel that strongly they will, and they'll have a place for their views. If they don't feel strongly they'll just drop it and start a new thread in 'Main' - which will be subject to the same rules.

Just an idea. What do you think Dr. E?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 10:09 AM
How about my customary behavior - simply inaction (preferably with a beer or other adult beverage).

Sometimes these boards go for long stretches with boring topics. The grandmas and bedwetters are going to be in a tizzie, but probably the rest can handle some excitement once in a while.

(The sarcasm is not directed at you, Malakas, it's just general; you're a brother ex-pat like me).
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 16, 2006, 10:10 AM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Point taken, Darth.   I will refrain from the further use of melodrama.   It's not typical of me though - at least I hope not.   I don't know what got into me.      :?


I have been known to have a flair for the dramatic myself.  We are all human.  We get angry.

I am approaching this from this perspective:  a few posters do not find value in certain cases of "staying at home" and have provided some argumentation as to why they hold that opinion.  Yes, the opinion has undoubtedly been presented in a hostile manner, but we would do well to understand they are not the authority when it comes to appraising the worth of a traditional lifestyle choice like "staying at home."

Personally, I do not understand why these discussions are so important in the first place.  To me, the real problem is "no-fault" divorce and the casual disregard of marriage vows.  I have never been married, but if I ever do, I intend to take the vows seriously.  There is, of course, no guarantee my spouse would have a similar intention.  What is worse is the law does nothing to encourage couples to take marriage seriously.  It can be ended at the drop of the hat with no consequences for the one who initiates it.  That is not only wrong but destructive.  Marriage is taken much less seriously than any old contract, and it enrages me.

You seem to regard marriage highly, and I applaud you for it.  Marriage is an institution worth saving, and we need more people to fight for it.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 16, 2006, 10:11 AM
Quote
The mods could decide when some thread has gone too far and needs to be moved. Anybody who wants to pursue a personal slight beyond a couple of posts does it in the new forum. If they feel that strongly they will, and they'll have a place for their views. If they don't feel strongly they'll just drop it and start a new thread in 'Main' - which will be subject to the same rules.


Sounds reasonable to me.  We already have 'The Ring', which is not intended quite exactly for that purpose, but I'm sure it could be adapted since it is so rarely used.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Galt on Jun 16, 2006, 10:14 AM
Quote from: "Darth Sidious"
To me, the real problem is "no-fault" divorce and the casual disregard of marriage vows.


I agree with that, but the further problem is that the woman is held to the "modern" standard in divorce court, i.e. I want out when I want out and not a second later, but the man is held to the "traditional" standard. In fact, it has arguably only gotten worse with the draconian "Friend of the Court" enforcement.

I say pick one or the other.  If marriage today means "going steady", then give the woman the appropriate dues when she throws his frat pledge-pin back at him. Which means "unfortunately, you've got to try to get your waitress job back again, because your target isn't going to support you by court order".

Caveat: No, I'm not personally paying alimony and I have no children. I have seen male relatives and friends literally get destroyed, however, for a smirking ex-bride.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 16, 2006, 10:45 AM
Quote
Sounds reasonable to me. We already have 'The Ring', which is not intended quite exactly for that purpose, but I'm sure it could be adapted since it is so rarely used.
Thanks, Sir Jessy.
The problem with 'The Ring' is that it's advertised as 'one on one'. For most people that sounds like a lot of hard work that few would read. A dinner-party debate is fascinating if you're there, but it's meaningless in cyber-space.

When a thread in 'Main' descends to mud slinging,  personal attacks,  heartfelt experiences, silly comments, broad-minded observations, and narrow-minded bigotry; all get lumped together into something that has little to do with the original thread.

I'll risk this challenge: Have we become so feminised that we're no longer capable of linear thinking? Does a hotch-potch of personal feelings constitute debate? I don't know, but it certainly pulls the posts.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Somebody else on Jun 16, 2006, 11:06 AM
I stop paying attention to a thread and it's all over the map.

If you are going to use a quote Christiane, don't pull it so far out of context.

Quote
"SAHMs could benefit their families greatly..... Do they? Most, no."


What I said was...

"SAHMs could benefit their families greatly. Stretch the family finances by doing all they can. Make clothes, rather than buy all the time. Buy food in bulk and can it. Grow a garden where applicable. Cut coupons. Pool together with other SAHMs for greater buying power or labor management, i.e. cooking quantities of food together and freezing it.

Do they? Most, no."

So, do most SAHMs do these things I listed? No they don't. They used to in the past.

If you do, then more power to you. It wasn't aimed at you.


Quote from: "Wookie"
As I said b4 it is about educating men that they do not need to shoulder the burden of being the single wage earner and that they are not bad for telling the little woman "Get a bloody job or get out"


And if she does neither, then what's the course of action?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 16, 2006, 11:19 AM
My apologies Somebody else if I took your comment out of context.  It was for the sake of brevity.   Quoting the entire comment in no way detracts from it's insulting nature.  I don't do any of the things you listed, so the implication is that I'm one of the "most" of SAHM's who don't benefit their family greatly.  

I should not have edited your comment.   Please accept my sincere apology.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Malakas on Jun 16, 2006, 11:24 AM
Quote
And if she does neither, then what's the course of action?
Are you asking directions Somebody else? I understand what you're saying but if I wanted to go somewhere else, other than where you are, I wouldn't start from there.  :)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Somebody else on Jun 16, 2006, 11:32 AM
Thank you Christiane. Well for the sake of brevity, I didn't list all the things SAHMs do either.

In fact, though, I very much like the idea of SAHMs, especially when the children are small. An invaluable job.

I just don't like the attitude (possible foot in mouth moment) of those that take advantage of the situation and don't use their time effectively to better the family.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 16, 2006, 11:37 AM
Thank you for the clarification, Somebody else.   I agree with you.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Somebody else on Jun 16, 2006, 11:53 AM
Quote from: "Malakas"
Quote
And if she does neither, then what's the course of action?
Are you asking directions Somebody else? I understand what you're saying but if I wanted to go somewhere else, other than where you are, I wouldn't start from there.  :)


I don't quite understand your response.

Hypothetical situation - a couple is married, he works, she decides she will not work. He is not agreeable to this.

It's the stereotypical - the woman has the choice; the man must work.

What course of action exists for this man?

He has no way to force her to work. Can't really quit his job and join her in not working. A divorce, he will likely lose much that he would rather not lose. Seems like he's between a rock and a hard place.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 16, 2006, 02:13 PM
I'd like to offer clarification to my comment I made early on the thread re. women's priorities.  A trusted and respected member here PMd me with their thoughts on my comments and it got me thinking that I really need to clarify this.  So here's what I wrote to them:

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Please allow me to clarify what I was driving at: I belileve that all humans - and likely most all successful species of life on planet earth - are first and foremost driven by self-preservation.  And in my mind this is not a bad thing, and I suppose I should have made that point in my post.  Indeed, I think that in many ways it may be why women are healthier and live longer than men.  Men are notoriously cavalier about self-preservation, miny times to the point of self-destruction, and to me this is bad.  Further, I believe that female Homo sapiens are innately conditioned by biology and culture to put their offspring first after their own self-preservation (i.e., the mother needs to live in order to keep her kids alive).  I think that similarly male Homo sapiens are conditioned to provide for their families first and foremost, with self-preservation very important but, if not 'less' than for females, at least different.  

Thus, what I was trying to point out was that women (the General Human Female - everyone's individual experience obviously is different) are primarily motivated by self-interest and self-preservation (which I believe is true).  However, the same could be said for men, except that while we're more than likely just as movtivated by self-interest, IMO our self-preservation priority is lower than women's; we can see this in the stats for excessive drinking, drug abuse, and countless other reckless and dangerous behaviors.   Indeed, men could use a bit more self-interest and self-preservation skills when, for example, hanging out with their pals at the local bar before driving home.

While I've become weary of feminists browbeating us MRAs to always qualify that 'men do or are  so-and-so too' when we point out behavior in women,  in this case I see that I should made that clear.  This is such a touchy subject that I now know it requres one to go the extra mile vis-a-vis avoiding insult, hurt feelings, misunderstanding, etc.  


Self-preservation and self-interest are not a bad things at all, and as I've tried to note, can be quite beneficial.  Plus, we might be able to use that innate human trait to our advantage, here and in other arenas as well.

I also want to make my views of SAHMs clear, so here's another excerpt:

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
I'm really sick of two things that this thread addresses: The wholesale dismissal and devaluation of 1) SAHMs, and 2) the right for couples to choose what works for them without interference from outside forces, what I call the "Nanny State."  I was raised by a SAHM who was the most intelligent, dynamic person I've ever met, and I'm here to tell you that it had a profound effect on her.  She wanted to be an archeologist, geologist, etc., but back in her day (she'd be 85 if she were still alive) women didn't have the kinds of opportunities that they do now, so she did what society expected of her:  She got a teaching degree, taught high school english and then quit work and became a SAHM when she had kids.  I believe that my sibs and I are much better people because she chose to sacrifice her professional ambitions for the well-being of her kids, and for that I will always respect - to the point of reverence - SAHMs.  Those who make that choice are IMO truly noble.


I really think that I need to pay more attention to how what I say might affect other people, so to any of you who were insulted by my comments, I apologize.  The 'net being what it is such things are easy to do.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 16, 2006, 03:52 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
TMOTS, while I admire and respect most all of your posts, here and elsewhere, I haven't seen evidence to suggest the type of "obssession" you refer to above, so I feel the need to step in here and side with TB re. taking umbrage at that comment.  That's getting too close to personal attack for my comfort leve.  Besides, who cares what people are in to?


I agree Mr Bad.  THat was the point of the post.  Intentionally fork-tongued to show an example of what I was refering to.  I wish I could take back a few things that I have said in these past few days on this thread.  Not because I believe they were "wrong" per ce.  But because they didn't come out exactly the way I meant.  But I don't like editing (or removing) posts after folks have read or responded to them.  It makes for poor flow for those that have not seen what was said.

Furthermore, I am human, I make mistakes.  I say things sometimes that don't come out exactly the way I want, or just plain idiotic things.  But hey, I think people should see that side of me as well as the post that they may "agree" with.  It is only fair.

TMOTS

PS>  Shit.  No this is not a stab at Galt for allegedly removing a post of his.....
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 17, 2006, 04:08 AM
Darth - We have tried the ignore function before and what happened was pretty interesting.  Very very few people used it.  There was a good deal of interest prior to it being installed but once the option was available it was ignored.   :wink:   The upcoming version of this software will have an ignore function built in so your idea will be available.  I'm not sure when it is supposed to be ready.  They have been working on it for years....  In theory the idea of an ignore function is a good one.  We will see.

Christiane - My apologies for letting others know that you had sent an email complaining about this board to one or our male members.  I should have realized that you would be embarrassed.  My bad.

This thread has certainly been a strange one.  One poster attacks another by telling the poster to "fuck off" and then is portrayed as the victim of veiled personal attacks.  It's hard to imagine going to a new board somewhere and telling one of the members to go fuck themselves and then to complain about the way I was treated.  Maybe it's because I'm a guy.  

This SAHP issue has proven itself to be very volitile.  Having been a partial SAHD I see the immense benifit for small children and for the bonding and love that is shared during those times.  The feminists simply HATE this bond and experience and have done everything in their power to shame SAHP's and minimize SAHP's because it sabatages their agenda of getting women in the workplace.  So much for the best interests of the child.  They are only thinking of the best interests of the feminists. I think we need to be able to honor SAHP's and their efforts while also pointing out the inequities and the lack of choices for dads.  Baby, bathwater.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 17, 2006, 04:20 AM
Malakas wrote:

Quote
The mods could decide when some thread has gone too far and needs to be moved. Anybody who wants to pursue a personal slight beyond a couple of posts does it in the new forum. If they feel that strongly they will, and they'll have a place for their views. If they don't feel strongly they'll just drop it and start a new thread in 'Main' - which will be subject to the same rules.


I have always thought it was best to get things ironed out on the original thread but am starting to wonder if maybe it would be a good idea to come up with something like this or a variation.  Thanks Malakas.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Gonzman on Jun 17, 2006, 05:05 AM
Boy, go AWOL for a few days....

Funny how similar things are going on over at Hugo's, with the femherroids arguing that he's just not vociferous enough in denouncing someone who is coming around to feminist thinking, but isn't there yet.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 17, 2006, 05:29 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Boy, go AWOL for a few days....

Funny how similar things are going on over at Hugo's, with the femherroids arguing that he's just not vociferous enough in denouncing someone who is coming around to feminist thinking, but isn't there yet.


Hi Gonz - I was wondering what happened to you.

You think what we're seeing here and over Hugo's is due to the phase of the moon, the hot weather, the earth passing through the tail of a comet or something else?     ;)
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: SIAM on Jun 17, 2006, 05:29 AM
Quote
Funny how similar things are going on over at Hugo's, with the femherroids arguing that he's just not vociferous enough in denouncing someone who is coming around to feminist thinking, but isn't there yet.


Yeah I've been reading that too. Actually makes me believe Hugo is utterly sincere in his beliefs while contrasted with a select number of regular posters there who are positively dripping with man-hate.  I disagree with Hugo a lot, but I will say this: he may be deluded, but he does come across as being sincere about his delusions.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 17, 2006, 04:24 PM
Quote
This thread has certainly been a strange one. One poster attacks another by telling the poster to "fuck off" and then is portrayed as the victim of veiled personal attacks. It's hard to imagine going to a new board somewhere and telling one of the members to go fuck themselves and then to complain about the way I was treated. Maybe it's because I'm a guy.


I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I cannot let this one go.  

Dr. Evil, it's your board to do with what you wish, but I truly don't understand what YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

TB accused Christianne of USING MEN.  That was fine in your book, but it was NOT fine for Christianne to react to that heinous false accusation - and YES, SHE DID MEAN CHRISTIANNE. (sheesh)  But TB is clever that way - poor girl, bright as she is, she probably spent all of five seconds ascertaining how she could make a personal attack and make it seem as though it was not.

I am, quite frankly, shocked that you, as a psychologist, are not on to TB's extremely passive-agressive, ostensibly subtle (but shockingly obvious) manipulations here.  Biscuit Queen was so right about TB being able to "fly in under the radar".  

I completely broke the rules with my rant.  I take responsibility for that.  But I don't see how you don't see how Typhon continues to manipulate.  She's the first to decry the "batting your eyelashes" technique for attention, but she's got it down to a fine art.

I don't like her.  I make no apologies for that.  I understand her better than she thinks I do.  I won't analyze her here - that would be unfair and unkind.  

I think everyone here knows me for what I truly am - no, it's not always pretty, but it's very real.  I'm emotional, lonely, a bit insecure, volatile, sincere, dedicated.  I go off at times.  My language is apalling. (Yours would be too, if you spent 9 years as a JW unable to even say "damn".)

But I digress.


I shouldn't even be posting, what with my father so ill and yes, I'm afraid death is soon - but with all respect, I just don't see how you can't see it.

And no, I'm not paranoid.  In fact, I'm going to make a very bold statement here:  I'm actually very on target with my observations and have been called on numerous occassions a
"very wise woman".

Do I think you should change anything?  No, I do not.  If TB feels that way, fine - she should be able to express herself.  ANd I say this knowing that you let me off the hook without a warning for MY behaviour.

I know it's almost impossible to be even handed and fair in all instances, but I truly don't see where you have given fair consideration to BQ.  BQ was rational, respectful and fair, and basically she was blown off.  HEre, at least.  

And now I've said what I needed to say.  No, no one needed to hear it.  

But that's life.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 17, 2006, 04:33 PM
While I'm at it, I also think Devia gets treated unfairly.
But in the final analysis, what I think does not matter at all.

I let TB bother me. The fault is mine.  But I still don't understand how you just don't see what she does here. I truly don't.  

Off to rest now.....I do feel a bit better.  And I know some here don't like me, and that's okay with me.  I am here for good and I'm going to work hard for the rights of fathers and men.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: alien on Jun 17, 2006, 04:46 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
While I'm at it, I also think Devia gets treated unfairly.
But in the final analysis, what I think does not matter at all.

I let TB bother me. The fault is mine.  But I still don't understand how you just don't see what she does here. I truly don't.  

Off to rest now.....I do feel a bit better.  And I know some here don't like me, and that's okay with me.  I am here for good and I'm going to work hard for the rights of fathers and men.

contrarymary, members of this forum do like you.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 17, 2006, 05:09 PM
Well, CM I like you and value your presence here and will go through this one more time just for you.  Please hear me out.

Typhon said:
Quote

Of course you love men. Without them you would be working.


In my mind she was talking about women (SAHM's) in general not about Christiane.  Was it provocative?  Yes.  Was it rude?  Maybe so.  Was it against the rules here?  No.

Then Christiane responds with:

Quote
We are working. Go fuck yourself, tb.


Please notice that she didn't say I AM WORKING which would have shown us that she took Typhons statement to be solely directed towards her, she said WE ARE WORKING which says to me that she knew that the statement was directed towards a larger group.  A statement directed toward a larger group is not likely to be a personal attack on a single individual.  In fact that has been the ignition of all of this, that some folks are taking very personally other posters strong criticism of the groups to which they identify.  The thing to keep in mind is that criticism of the larger group is not an indictment upon any individual.  Does that make sense?  

Then of course she responds with her own personal attack on Typhon.  And we are off to the races.

I hope you can see why I decided to act the way I did.  This job it not an easy one and lately it is taking more and more of my time.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 17, 2006, 06:14 PM
Sorry, no, I do not think she meant in general. I think it was a very specific statement to Christiane.

If she had meant in general, she would have said "Of course SAHMs love men, without them they would be working.

She said " Of course you do"

Typhon is claiming Christiane is a user, who only can love a man because he is doing something for her. Typhon cannot know this, it is rude, and it is a personal insult.  You are really adding to what she said to see a general staement with that personal pronoun usage.

Christiane is responding as I often did, which is to defend the position AND herself, as she identifies with the position. 'We' is often used unconsiously because there are many SAHMs.

I, too, do not understand how a psychologist is missing this. While we SAHMs are allowing things to get personal, and should learn to have a thicker skin, TB is also breaking rules under your radar.

Notice she has not agreed with your assessment?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 17, 2006, 06:23 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Well, CM I like you and value your presence here and will go through this one more time just for you.  Please hear me out.

Typhon said:
Quote

Of course you love men. Without them you would be working.


In my mind she was talking about women (SAHM's) in general not about Christiane.  Was it provocative?  Yes.  Was it rude?  Maybe so.  Was it against the rules here?  No.

Then Christiane responds with:

Quote
We are working. Go fuck yourself, tb.


Please notice that she didn't say I AM WORKING which would have shown us that she took Typhons statement to be solely directed towards her, she said WE ARE WORKING which says to me that she knew that the statement was directed towards a larger group.  A statement directed toward a larger group is not likely to be a personal attack on a single individual.  In fact that has been the ignition of all of this, that some folks are taking very personally other posters strong criticism of the groups to which they identify.  The thing to keep in mind is that criticism of the larger group is not an indictment upon any individual.  Does that make sense?  

Then of course she responds with her own personal attack on Typhon.  And we are off to the races.

I hope you can see why I decided to act the way I did.  This job it not an easy one and lately it is taking more and more of my time.


I wish I could, but I can't.  Please note the bolded phrase, and see that even you understand that TB's attack was personal,   "Her own personal attack".  Meaning on some level, you understand TB was making a personal attack, or you would not have phrased it that way.

But I most certainly respect you, and understand the job you do is a difficult one.   I truly do.

Enough of this. I'm tired.  I don't imagine I'm the only one.
And thank you for your civil, considered response
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 17, 2006, 06:24 PM
Oh jeezus. What a mire.

20 pages of peoples feelings being hurt. All this energy devoted to the emotions of women. Man oh man.

There wasn't this much blow-up when I called Malakas an asshat, or AngryHarry a poser, or NotooFembots a crazy old coot.(BTW, if you're paying attention Dr. Evil, I've managed to implicate myself in *3* infractions to the rules. If you want to ban me to stop this craziness, then you are in your rights to do so.)  

Lets take another look at it, shall we?

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"
As always, I love you dearly.   Yes, target an insulted audience with half a brain, and you might get results.   How to go about that, I'm not an expert, but it can't be rocket science.  

The feminist movement has been ridiculing and insulting the SAHM segment of the female population for 20 years.   We're so done with them.   Woo us.   We love men.    We will come to you....       8)


Of course you love men. Without them you would be working.


Christine says "****WE**** love men". As in "all or a majority of SAHMs".

I respond by saying "Of course *****YOU**** love men", thus refering to "all or a majority of SAHMs".

Now, why did I say something so rude.

Let me use one of my detested analogies.

Lets say your significant other, who you profess to love absolutely, says "Help! I'm hurting, I need you!"

Do you respond with "woo me. Tell me *why* I should help you?" Or do you get off your ass and do something? Either determine if your loved one needs help and give it, or determine that he doesn't and don't?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 17, 2006, 06:28 PM
Quote
20 pages of peoples feelings being hurt. All this energy devoted to the emotions of women. Man oh man.


But it's MORE than OK for twenty pages to be devoted to your oh-so-erudite THOUGHTS.  

Why are YOUR THOUGHTS more important than MY EMOTIONS ????????????????????????????????????????
:roll:

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're on ignore.

Buh bye
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 17, 2006, 06:42 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"

But it's MORE than OK for twenty pages to be devoted to your oh-so-erudite THOUGHTS.


I don't think the entire 20 pages was devoted to my thoughts. But since this is a discussion group, I assume thoughts are welcome.

Quote
Why are YOUR THOUGHTS more important than MY EMOTIONS?


Because they're more relevant? Because thoughts can be discussed whereas emotions... what can they do except limit discussions or be a distraction?
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: VicVanity on Jun 17, 2006, 06:55 PM
So!!!!1 does this mean  , none, of the babes are gonna sleep with me ????

:lol:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 17, 2006, 07:04 PM
If I might, just for a moment, be permitted to weigh in.

Quote
Lets say your significant other, who you profess to love absolutely, says "Help! I'm hurting, I need you!"

Do you respond with "woo me. Tell me *why* I should help you?" Or do you get off your ass and do something? Either determine if your loved one needs help and give it, or determine that he doesn't and don't?


Look, tb, I don't know where you get your analogies, but here again you are implying that SAHM's sit on our asses and do nothing to help our men when they're hurting, need us, and ask for our help.   This is a sweeping, general statement that is very insulting to the two SAHM's in this thread, who have obviously posted enough personal information here and previously, as to make any reasonable person know they are not this sort of person.

And the "woo us - we will come to you" part of my comment, pages and pages ago, was a take off on that movie, Field of Dreams, you know, "Built it and they will come".   I often say things in a joking, lighthearted manner, and the smilie was supposed to indicate that.   My meaning is that I don't think the majority of SAHM's are aware of the serious injustice being done to men.   I wasn't, and I am looking at things in a whole new way than I did before.   My point is that I think you'd find, as a movement, a potential source of support there.   That's all I'm saying.   It was meant in the best manner possible.

Look, I felt personally insulted, I fired back, I took a warning for it.   I'd say the same thing again.  It was worth the warning.  Happens all the time around here.

And being pissed off does not constitute victimhood.   I'd rather be called an ignorant slut than a victim.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 17, 2006, 07:05 PM
LOL...  I dunno.  You look pretty hot.   Might wanna rethink that collar though...    :wink:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 17, 2006, 07:13 PM
Quote
Quote

Look, I felt personally insulted, I fired back, I took a warning for it.   I'd say the same thing again.  It was worth the warning.  Happens all the time around here.

And being pissed off does not constitute victimhood.   I'd rather be called an ignorant slut than a victim.


Fair enough.  :mrgreen:


Bad editing.

The "fair enough" should follow the "Happens all the time around here." Not the "...ignorant slut than a victim."
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 17, 2006, 07:53 PM
Can you feel the love?  I know I can. :popcorn:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 17, 2006, 08:01 PM
Me too, Darth.   Damn, I'd sure be making a pot of dough if I was out of the ring and wheeling the bevvie cart around...    :roll:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: BaltimoreMan on Jun 17, 2006, 08:13 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Me too, Darth.   Damn, I'd sure be making a pot of dough if I was out of the ring and wheeling the bevvie cart around...    :roll:


Chris, I understand where you are coming from. Just try to give TB the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like this. She tends to post -and think- in a very "male",or linear fashion, and she seems to value intellectual discourse to the extent of sometimes forgetting politeness. While I am pretty sure she didn't actually violate the rules here (BQ's latest post pending) she did, in my opinion tread the line and I will watch her to see if she is more careful in the future.

Nonetheless, she is an extremely bright person, and , as you can guess she gives feminists and others who disagree with her fits. When she posts, please try to imagines you are debating (or talking to) a very old professor of logic, very sheltered, who is engrossed in her studies to such an extent that she looks at the world in a very theoretical way and often trips when it comes to humanizing her words or getting along with those who can't appreciate argument for its own sake. It might help you "depersonalize" some of her statements.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 17, 2006, 08:14 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
Me too, Darth.   Damn, I'd sure be making a pot of dough if I was out of the ring and wheeling the bevvie cart around...    :roll:


Now that you mention it, I am rather parched.  I fancy a Cherry Coke.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: BaltimoreMan on Jun 17, 2006, 08:16 PM
Quote from: "Darth Sidious"
Quote from: "Christiane"
Me too, Darth.   Damn, I'd sure be making a pot of dough if I was out of the ring and wheeling the bevvie cart around...    :roll:


Now that you mention it, I am rather parched.  I fancy a Cherry Coke.


No wonder you are named "Darth Sideous"! Only SITH could like Cherry coke!  :P
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Christiane on Jun 17, 2006, 08:31 PM
Quote
No wonder you are named "Darth Sideous"! Only SITH could like Cherry coke!


lol...   Fine Darth - here ya go.  We'll run ya a tab.  

I hear you BaltimoreMan - I particularly like the "old professor" visual, although I've been using a slightly different one.    
:wink:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 17, 2006, 08:41 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote
Quote

Look, I felt personally insulted, I fired back, I took a warning for it.   I'd say the same thing again.  It was worth the warning.  Happens all the time around here.

And being pissed off does not constitute victimhood.   I'd rather be called an ignorant slut than a victim.


Fair enough.  :mrgreen:


Bad editing.

The "fair enough" should follow the "Happens all the time around here." Not the "...ignorant slut than a victim."


Crap. I deleted my post and I don't want to retype it.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 17, 2006, 08:58 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
lol...   Fine Darth - here ya go.


:evillaugh:

* Darth Sidious summons the Cherry Coke can with the Force.  *

Darth Sidious: I have waited a long time for this moment, my little red friend.

* Darth Sidious indulgently imbibes the beverage. *

Darth Sidious: It is delicious as I had foretasted.

* Master Yoda approaches. *

Yoda: Knew it I did.  A new beverage I hear you drink, Emperor.  Or should I call you Darth Sidious?

Darth Sidious: Master Yoda, can it!

* Darth Sidious hurls the empty can into Master Yoda's wide-open mouth. *

Quote from: "Christiane"
We'll run ya a tab.


The Empire will compensate you.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: gwallan on Jun 17, 2006, 11:36 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote
Quote

Look, I felt personally insulted, I fired back, I took a warning for it.   I'd say the same thing again.  It was worth the warning.  Happens all the time around here.

And being pissed off does not constitute victimhood.   I'd rather be called an ignorant slut than a victim.


Fair enough.  :mrgreen:


Bad editing.

The "fair enough" should follow the "Happens all the time around here." Not the "...ignorant slut than a victim."


Crap. I deleted my post and I don't want to retype it.


LOL Make that "old forgetful professor".
:twisted:
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: contrarymary on Jun 18, 2006, 04:21 AM
Quote from: "VicVanity"
So!!!!1 does this mean  , none, of the babes are gonna sleep with me ????

:lol:


That was the funniest thing I've read here in a long time.

Vic, you're a genius.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Jun 18, 2006, 05:03 AM
Quote
I guess your kids are different then I was. When I was home I did my own thing. Parental time investment not needed.

Of course I started writing science fiction when I was 10 and before then I always had my little projects and inventions to tinker on.


I missed this. I think it is very relevant, so I will bring it up, if you find a computer before leaving for the states.

My 10  year old has been  writing fantasy for several years now, he buys old Soviet military uniforms off E-Bay with his money earned from high honor roll, collects model weapons and has the ability to speak in about 10 different accents, quite well. My older son can dismantle anything and put it back together. He is an amazing technician, has just gotten a poem published in a national hardcover volume, and is a talented artist.{yes, this is an unashamed brag of our kids} You may have been a unique child, but there are a lot of unique children.That is not why you were left alone as a child.

It is not a difference in children, it is a difference in parenting. Your parents were distant, from what it sounds like. I am not. I play at least one game with my kids daily, been Warlord for a few weeks now, a fanstasy card game. We play sports, go on hikes, cook together, read stories every night. I do not trust the influences around here to just say my kids are bright and interesting enough not to be in trouble, and quite frankly I LIKE spending time with my kids.  I was a bright and interesting child, and I got into tons of trouble, so I am a cautious parent, having lived through every parent's worst nightmare already.

You devalue SAHMs because you see little of value in having one, since your parents did not show you all a parent really could do if they spent the time. Not saying your parents were bad parents, there are all sorts of styles which work for all sorts of kids.  I just think that since you do not know the value of an attentive, involved parent, then you cannot value an attentive, involved SAHP.


This really does make a lot  more sense now. It explains a great deal. Have fun on your trip to the states.  If you head through Chicago The House of Blues Hotel is a great stay.
Title: Here We Go Again
Post by: dr e on Jun 18, 2006, 07:45 AM
I think it is time to close this thread.  I will add some comments later.

E