Saturday, September 24, 2005

Life Choices Must be Made Early for Women

Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood

By LOUISE STORY

Published: New York Times September 20, 2005

Cynthia Liu is precisely the kind of high achiever Yale wants: smart (1510 SAT), disciplined (4.0 grade point average), competitive (finalist in Texas oratory competition), musical (pianist), athletic (runner) and altruistic (hospital volunteer). And at the start of her sophomore year at Yale, Ms. Liu is full of ambition, planning to go to law school.

So will she join the long tradition of famous Ivy League graduates? Not likely. By the time she is 30, this accomplished 19-year-old expects to be a stay-at-home mom.

"My mother's always told me you can't be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time," Ms. Liu said matter-of-factly. "You always have to choose one over the other."

At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Many women at the nation's most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. Though some of these students are not planning to have children and some hope to have a family and work full time, many others, like Ms. Liu, say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment.

http:// www.nytimes.com


Actually there are two problems with this scenario. These women are assuming they are going to have a full-time working husband who is willing to assume the entire financial burden of supporting them and the children while they stay home for the seven to ten years it might take for them to return to work after having a few kids. This assumption of a ‘second income’ allowing them to remain unemployed for almost a decade or more might not become reality for many of these young women.

Many of their older sisters are facing exactly this dilemma at they hit their early to mid 30s NOW. Focusing on college and career-building during the first decade or so of their adult life has left them single and just now beginning the search for a partner, so they can begin having the perfect family of 2 children (one boy and one girl) that statistics say most American women desire. The men in their age grouping, however, who have been doing the same thing, building up their professional lives, are now looking for wives as well, but they are looking to their younger sisters as mates.

It appears that the professional and financial success that comes with working as a high-powered doctor, lawyer, corporate executive, politician etc., makes men eligible for the ‘pick of the litter’ when it comes time to look for a spouse, but the same is not the case for us women. Our professional/financial success appears to come at a cost and this cost appears to be marriage and motherhood; as men do NOT look to women who are professional successes when they look for a wife. They are still looking for the age-old standards of youth, beauty, peak physical condition, overall health (both physical and emotional), etc., that men have always looked for in their wives and the future mothers of their children. Very ‘retro’ in the modern age, but what can we do about it? Sadly nothing.

I mean no one was more horrified then I when I heard that Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas was reduced to doing a single parent adoption of a Chinese orphan in order to have any family. I mean this was, at one time anyway, a beautiful woman with everything going for her. Smart, successful, savvy, full of life and self-confidence. What the heck???? If she couldn’t attract a husband and have a kid or two through the usual method, well, what hope is there for the rest of us, let’s face it, rather ordinary women.

So as Maureen Dowd would sadly ask: Was feminism a sad joke for most women? Promising us the freedom to become everything we could be, but making that offer contingent upon giving up our most precious desire to have a husband and children.

It appears this could very well be the case. As the qualities that attract men to women are at their peak in twenty-somethings and fertility for women begins declining around age 27 or so; by age 35 most of us will be lucky if we can attract the dirty old man who hangs out in front of the bodega all day making sucking noises at every hot young thing that passes by (not that you’d want the old codger anyway, I’d rather have a faithful dog or cat as a companion). But I think you get my drift.

The career and attractive/reproductive years cycle follow the same trajectory unfortunately and time appears to be the enemy of both.

Thus I’m not entirely sure if young women are being totally realistic in their goals as outlined in the New York Times story above. Choices must be made and they must be made early enough so that they are really choices, not just the lesser of two evils option we fall into because we’ve waited too long to make a real choice.

Remember this as well. Early motherhood can also be a professional career killer, just as a career could end your chance of motherhood in the future. As it is not so easy as they claim to just morph into a professional career women after marrying and becoming a mother in your 20s and focusing the next decade or two on your family.

I can attest to that, having devoted most of my life to raising my children, returning to college in my 40s and getting a BA from a prestigious university guaranteed me nothing. I’m pretty much still making the same income now as I was when I was working with no college degree as guess what: the age thingy still exists in employment. Plus I now owe student loans to go along with my same income group, which I didn’t have that burden before.

Probably I’d say in retrospect that past 35 or so most women might be better off getting a small business loan, instead of wasting the money on a college degree, and finding some little niche they can do well and making it into a small business for themselves. Remember women’s ‘shelf-life’ in the working world is far shorter then men’s, far shorter. Thus, all of these things must be carefully taken into consideration when women plan their lives. AND yes, women must plan. We, unfortunately do NOT have the time to just travel, experiment, grow, just trying on different hats until we find the right fit the way many young men do. Our time line is shorter, if we want children and even if we don’t sometimes, as society treats a woman in her 30/40s far differently then they do a man in his 30/40s.

So don’t make this mistake and take too long to move definitively in one direction or the other. As many women waste their lives because they take too long to make ANY decision and so time makes it for them, not so much because women make bad ones.




14 comments:

Elusive Wapiti said...

Hi NYMOM. Thanks for inviting me over from Gonzo's Blog. I hope that you will consider what I have to say without choking off debate since chances are, given our divergent viewpoints, I will disagree with you. Frequently. But you may be suprised at the areas in which we do agree. Here's looking forward to a lively conversation.

Now, I agree that life choices must be made earlier for women than men if you want to bear your own children. This is just the way it is. Don't like that? Talk to God. He is the one who crafted you with a childbearing half-life. At least you have a choice; for guys, it's work or nothing. Okay, maybe the disgraceful choices of the street or jail, but who wants to go there? I think women should be thankful for the choices that you do have, instead of bemoaning them.

Now it's time for some introspection, so you gals out there, ask yourself this: Imagine that you are on a date. How willing are you to pair off permanently with a shiftless, no-job-having man? Do you relish the prospect of having to support a parasite for the rest of your life? Not very much, I would venture to guess, although some women do marry with the intent of supporting a haus-herr while they go off and slay corporate dragons.

Contrast this dilemma with that faced by men. Biblically, we're "sentenced" to work by God, and without work, we and our families won't eat. We know this, and accept it, albeit grudgingly sometimes. Our dilemma is of a different sort. It starts with the question: What kind of home life do we want? "Traditional" (danger quotes on purpose here, because what we see as traditional is really just a product of the Industrial Revolution), where the man works outside the home and the woman tends the hearth? Or non-traditional, where the both the man and the woman works outside the home to some degree? The danger for men lies in the consequences for us and our children for choosing poorly in a mate--a .5 lifetime probability of divorce--staggeringly high odds of disaster if you're a man. Even if a miserable divorce, with its miserable existence as a walking ATM and a miserable forced eviction from the lives of your children, doesn't result, a man may well end up with a miserable marriage to a selfish, miserable, unbearable harpy whose sole concern is her own happiness. So as you can see, it's not a basket of roses from this side of the gender divide, either.

Most men I know are willing to support a woman in exchange for things like bearing our children and making a happy home for them (the men) to come back to. I don't think the inverse applies that well: most women won't "date down" in either income or social class. Thus the farther up the corporate ladder they climb, the odds for successful romance tails off exponentially.

I think women like Ms. Liu sees both the terrible effects of the failure of the nuclear family on children and has made a choice in favor of children, and the writing on the wall for her personally if she pursues a career first. To me, it's a no-brainer.

men do NOT look to women who are professional successes when they look for a wife.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. I think that professional success is at best irrelevant, at worse a disqualifier, to most marriage-minded men. But that's just me and my limited experiences talking. Your mileage may vary.

They are still looking for the age-old standards of youth, beauty, peak physical condition, overall health (both physical and emotional), etc., that men have always looked for in their wives and the future mothers of their children.

All true, however, I think your list, showing only physical attributes, is incomplete. I would add non-tangibles such as kindness, warmth, and nuturing to the list. The real question is, why do men prefer women to be this way? Yes, it may be "retro" to seek these physical and emotional qualities in women while disregarding carrer achievement, but I think it is because men have come to recognize how much of an empty vessel a career is when it comes to personal fulfillment. It's a means to pay the bills, not an identity. Sure success is important, and being able to have a roof over one's head and food in the cupboard is essential, but your career won't sleep next to you at night, nor will it care for your children, nor will it comfort you in times of need or privation.

Also, I think that, deep down, men want a feminine woman with feminine attributes. Women with too many masculine attributes aren't as attractive. Personally, I'd want a woman with comparable intellect...someone that can carry on an intelligent conversation with me...but not someone who is trying to compete with me all of the time. That, I think, is where the rub is.

Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas was reduced to doing a single parent adoption of a Chinese orphan in order to have any family...Smart, successful, savvy, full of life and self-confidence

I can't look into Ms. Hutchinson's heart, so I don't know the motivations that propelled her to adopt. However, if she was indeed "forced" to adopt as a singleton in order to have a family, I would contend that this is a logical consequence of her previous choices and behavior. She worked too hard, too long to get to the top while the biological clock kept counting down toward zero. It's possible she selected against herself in the Darwinian dating game....most men don't want to marry another man...and seeking power, influence, competition, that's all mannish stuff.

Was feminism a sad joke for most women? Promising us the freedom to become everything we could be,

I can't believe that I'm going to actually agree with Maureen Down on something (*douses self in gasoline in despair, and goes off in seach of a lighter*), but she's right in that, sad joke or not, Feminism has sold women a false bill of goods. Problem is that this joke isn't very funny, and that women as well as men and their children are picking up the tab for such whimsy.

Thanks again for inviting me. I look forward to respectfully chatting with someone from across the ideological fence.

Respectfully submitted,
Elusive Wapiti

NYMOM said...

Thanks for coming.

Generally I try to be understanding of differences but the problem is that I resent having to endlessly argue or be intimidated, especially on my own blog. It's bad enough the way MRAs treat me on their sites. I'm not tolerating it on my own however, I'm just not doing it.

AND you saw how they act on Gonzo site...I mean I felt I HAD to go back there a couple of times and pay them SOME attention because they are habitally threatening to call my job and get me fired for posting in the past from work...

It's a form of emotional blackmail really that they use to get attention from me. It's sad, sick, silly and insane and I'll admit I contributed to it initally by posting on their sites to begin with; but the problem is how to stop the cycle from continuing NOW...

Anyway that problem will continue, I just wanted to let you know my side of it and why I erase most mens' comments as soon as they show up here. It's generally them with the name calling, the vulgaries and stupidity and like I said, I'm not tolerating it here.


Anyway back to marriage:

Like you said and I agree, most men do NOT look to marry a woman because she is their intellectual or social peer. Men might DATE women with such attributes, that I'll admit. Just as they'll go out with a buddy for a few beers.
But when it comes to marriage they generally aren't looking for a peer, but to be first amongst equals with a younger, more uncomplicated woman as their wife and the mother of their children.

AND many women are becoming more aware of this now and it's a confusing and mixed message they are getting.

I mean basically MRAs message now appears to be that they wish to have back the place as head of household (which they voluntarily walked away from in the 60s, preferring casual sex instead of marriage).

Now of course being head of household implies you are responsible for being the main breadwinner, provider/protector of your family as well...To me, one goes hand in hand with the other.

Yet many men appear to not want to accept the fact that they might have to accept back the role as main breadwinner as well, if they wish to have head of household title back again...

Thus, they want the best of both worlds: recognition of them as head of the family AGAIN and still having wives who work so they can share household expenses...and, of course in the event of a divorce not having to take care of said wife as presumably she can take care of herself...

Now clearly there is a conflict here as if you want these younger, less complicated wives that are going to recognize you as head of household; you are going to have to make some concessions to the fact that they are not career women and thus unable to provide much during the life of the marriage other then children and household services and if you divorce you are going to HAVE to provide them with an income depending upon their age, educational level, experience, etc..

UNLESS you expect to have professional high-earning wives, who just play stupid, and allow you to be the head of household and let you make all the important decisions anyway...

But what would be the gain for women in doing this anymore? Before women did it as we were really unequals in the situation, unable to adequately provide for ourselves in the event of divorce.
Now if you marry a professional woman she doesn't HAVE to play stupid, as she's self supporting and quite able to function independently.

So you see, men can't have your cake and eat it too...

You are either going to be following your head and marrying a 'peer' and then both work and you can expect 50/50 custody, no child support or alimony exchanged in the event of divorce, etc., OR you are going to be following your hearts and marrying younger, less capable women.

Then you have to accept whatever happens as that was your choice of mate. Probably that's about 90% of the problem, men wanting to marry young, pretty women with no achievements and then expecting them to act like brief-case carrying career women during marriage (when the bloom wears off the rose) or in the event of divorce...

It doesn't happen that way...

Elusive Wapiti said...

I agree that sometimes the discussion/debate devolves into name-calling and mud-slinging. I've found this to be true of many places I frequent, no matter what their ideological stripe. I try to avoid adding fuel to the fire, but must admit to not being entirely immune from it, either.

Like you said and I agree, most men do NOT look to marry a woman because she is their intellectual or social peer

I didn't quite say this, rather, only that they are more open to doing so, in contrast to women who tend only to look up or laterally in social/ intellectual status. What I did say was that they were more likely to eschew the career woman. I feel that this is because of the mental and social baggage that comes with her. Like I said, I don't think men want to marry men. Even if they have breasts, pretty eyes, and a vulva, they still act like men.

Men might DATE women with such attributes, that I'll admit. Just as they'll go out with a buddy for a few beers.

I suspect that in that dating process, they discover that she doesn't bring to the table what they are looking for. I've done the whole two-careers-then-scramble-home-to-make-dinner-at-six drill before. It's not fun, and is too hectic, especially on the children. Do it if you have to, but I advise against willingly chosing it.


But when it comes to marriage they generally aren't looking for a peer, but to be first amongst equals with a younger, more uncomplicated woman as their wife and the mother of their children.


If you mean by "first amongst equals" to mean headship, then I agree with you. Someone's gotta be the leader in every group larger than size one, and I sense that many men do feel the call to fulfill the responsibility that they have been charged with: to lead their families. Women err greatly by attempting to run roughshod over this, or by attempting to control or manipulate their men in an attempt to be the head themselves.

That having been said, I doubt seriously that men want easy-on-the-eyes doormats for wives. Loving, supportive, smart partners, yes. Good mothers, yes. Shrill, nagging harpies, no. Control freaks who abolutely *must* wear the pants in the house or they spontaneously bust into flames, no.

AND many women are becoming more aware of this now and it's a confusing and mixed message they are getting.


Agree, and I would say that men on the whole are just as confused as to what their role is as the ladies. Thank you, Feminism.

MRAs message now appears to be that they wish to have back the place as head of household (which they voluntarily walked away from in the 60s, preferring casual sex instead of marriage).

Disagree. From my read of history, it seems that the men were deposed as head of the household by the bra-burning, fish-and-bicycle crowd, not something they abdicated voluntarily and en masse. This coup d'etat is reinforced and perpetuated by Feminism, a women-and-mothers-first "family" court system, and no-fault divorce.

Thus, they want the best of both worlds: recognition of them as head of the family AGAIN and still having wives who work so they can share household expenses

It appears to me that you are equivocating headship and breadwinner; while these are nominally one and the same person, they aren't required to be so. For me, if I were married, I would be happy to stay at home with the chilluns and her to go out to work. I don't think that would adversely impact my role as leader of the home. Besides, the real lucrative job is that of a stay-at-home spouse. What a life--and rewarding too--to get to stay home and experience your children growing up, and not expected to work outside the home for the pleasure. Those hausfraus out there don't know how good they got it. But how they complain anyways.

and, of course in the event of a divorce not having to take care of said wife as presumably she can take care of herself

You just inadvertently hit the nail on the head. It is very dangerous for a man these days to consent to his wife quitting work. From a divorce standpoint, regardless of how skilled a worker she is, he will get financially a$$-raped by her if she is unemployed and divorces him, both for alimony and child support. Ths is because we still have 19th-century laws that assume that a housewife is functionally a child that has no skills and therefore cannot care for herself when she divorces. This is not the case today. Women are plenty capable of caring for themselves. They tell us men this all of the time. Time to take the responsibility commensurate with your rights.

To me, it's somewhat disingenuous to insist on equal rights and all that jazz, but when divorce time comes around--which women initiate rougly 2/3 of the time when children are not involved, and nearly 4/5 of the time when children are involved--women suddenly become little oppressed orphan Annie who need to be cared for. Ugh. Grow up.

Now clearly there is a conflict here as if you want these younger, less complicated wives that are going to recognize you as head of household; you are going to have to make some concessions to the fact that they are not career women and thus unable to provide much during the life of the marriage other then children and household services and if you divorce you are going to HAVE to provide them with an income depending upon their age, educational level, experience, etc..

The laws already assume this. The problem I have is with a culture that doesn't expect women to support themselves and their children in the event of a divorce when it's plain that they have the means to do so. It's easier to milk the man for a paycheck and sit on her bum, eat Ho-Hos all day long, watch All My Children and bitch about the patriarchy to her gal pals.

Maybe she should try walking a mile in a man's moccasins...you try being coerced by the State to pay out hard-earned money to a man who able-bodied but the patriarchy won't require to support himself. Then watch him spend most of that money on himself, while the children run around in rags. See how you like it.

Seems to me that if there are any people in this scenario that are having their cake and eating it too, it is women. I know that you don't want to read that, but sorry, it's what I think. Equal rights means equal responsibility in my book. Women need to be forced to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions, good and bad, instead of expecting men and society to always foot the bill for them when they fall down and hurt themselves.

UNLESS you expect to have professional high-earning wives, who just play stupid, and allow you to be the head of household and let you make all the important decisions anyway...

See above. I don't think men want stupid wives, or even worse, smart women who play stupid. Do women really think men want this? Speaks volumes about women's opinion of men. Also, please explain to me why I should be dating a snarky woman who thinks like this, again? Think I'd rather wear garlic around my neck and sleep with a cross.

Also, a leader is skating on thin ice if he routinely ignores or suppresses the opinions and input of those under his care.

You are either going to be following your head and marrying a 'peer' and then both work and you can expect 50/50 custody, no child support or alimony exchanged in the event of divorce, etc., OR you are going to be following your hearts and marrying younger, less capable women

If men followed the irrefutable head-logic of the situation, men would never get married because the benefits don't outweigh the costs. Marriage in our society has become a machine to provide women with ex husbands from whom they may siphon money from. Gonz et al have done a far better job articulating the case against marriage and for cohabitation better than I ever could. For me, my head is doing all it can to keep me--and whatever additional children I may have--from getting hurt again by a woman. Mostly by reminding myself of what it was like to have my family torn apart, my children kidnapped 3,000 miles away with no redress, and then be charged nearly $30,000 for the pleasure, all because she was "unhappy".

My heart--and faith--is the only thing that is driving me to give women another chance. There have to be trustworthy women out there, amongst all the flotsam and jetsam. Trouble is discriminating between the keepers and the throwbacks...after all, it's not like the discards have labels on them warning away unuspecting males.

For those fellows who aren't able to find a woman of virtue, integrity, and kindness--but whose faith precludes them from cohabitation and/or fornication--then there's always adoption or surrogacy. Both are cheaper than the cost of a wedding and two sets of divorce lawyers.

NYMOM said...

"It appears to me that you are equivocating headship and breadwinner; while these are nominally one and the same person, they aren't required to be so. For me, if I were married, I would be happy to stay at home with the chilluns and her to go out to work. I don't think that would adversely impact my role as leader of the home."

But you fail to see that in fact it would impact your role as leader.

Women are not going to allow men to be in charge of anything if they aren't contributing financially to the household...

I hate to be so blunt but even in that Times article only TWO women out of the 60 or so they interviewed mentioning wanting their husbands to stay home and raise the children.

I just don't see a lot of women going for this.

I know a few women who do it now, but most resent it and it's not something they planned; but it just kind of happened when their husband became unemployed.

I fail to see why you and other men would even THINK this would be okay with women for you to do this...and then presume you are going to be allowed to claim back the role as head of household again...

So you divorced in other words and don't have custody of your children? Do you see them now at least???

Elusive Wapiti said...

But you fail to see that in fact it would impact your role as leader.

Women are not going to allow men to be in charge of anything if they aren't contributing financially to the household...

I just don't see a lot of women going for this


The kind of woman I'm looking for, I would hope that this wouldn't be much of a problem for her. I realize that this eliminates the vast majority of women out there, but then again, I don't have much use for those ladies anyways.

On the whole, I think you're probably right here. The same choices that most women expect for themselves, those same women don't extend to men. Interesting double-standard there, albeit not entirely unexpected.

There is a couple I know where the female makes more than the male, and the male is preparing to quit work to stay at home with the children. They are also a believing, Christian household, where the male has headship of the family. I asked the both of them, separately, if they thought that this would affect their roles in the home. They both responded with a resounding no. So I do think it's possible, and even desirable.

That having been said, I sense that you are correct that for the vast majority of non-believing couples, inverting the wage strucure (woman breadwinner, man homemaker) also inverts the power structure.

I just happen to think, based on observation alone, that women are more comfortable, more natural feeling, in a supportive role versus a leading role. They want to have security provided for them, not the other way around. This is why I think so many women are unhappy when they are the primary breadwinners and assume leadership of the home by default. Deep down, they'd rather the "stick" went to someone else.


I hate to be so blunt but even in that Times article only TWO women out of the 60 or so they interviewed mentioning wanting their husbands to stay home and raise the children.


This raises a related, interesting question with me. I have observed that many women seem to have the conceit that only they are really qualified to raise children. I assure you that this is not the case with most of my male friends who are fathers. Why does this bigotry exist?

So you divorced in other words and don't have custody of your children?

Correct. And I fought for custody, not because of spite or craven lust for money, as is libelously assumed by many of your postings on this site, but because I believed that they would be better off overall with my having custody and their mother having visitation.

Given my extreme difficulties with access to them now, and difficulties on whole hosts of issues, and the observable negative effects on my children, those opinions have been vindicated across the board.

NYMOM said...

"On the whole, I think you're probably right here. The same choices that most women expect for themselves, those same women don't extend to men. Interesting double-standard there, albeit not entirely unexpected..."

Well of course it's not unexpected. It has nothing to do with a double standard but with a realistic one. Why would you think a woman would go through everything we go through to bring children into the world just to hand them over to someone else to raise?

It doesn't even make any sense.

AND actually I think in the upcoming generation you are going to see fewer and fewer women who are not sincerely interested in children even having them anymore. So it's LESS likely that the women, who would be willing to hand their kids over to someone else to raise, will even bother having any.

So men who look to do this are going to be more disappointed.

Frankly I wouldn't even have kids with a guy who even mentioned this as a possibility. He'd have to lie about his intentions in order for this to happen as, of course, I would expect to raise my own infant until I was ready to go back to work...


"There is a couple I know where the female makes more than the male, and the male is preparing to quit work to stay at home with the children. They are also a believing, Christian household, where the male has headship of the family."

This is rare Elusive.

So don't plan your life around this happening and like many of these situations it came up AFTER the marriage and children were born. I seriously doubt if this woman went into this situation planning this. It's like friends I know who did it. They fell into it unplanned and most of the women involved resent their husbands because of it.

And I don't know any believing Christian households; but I tend to suspect that they are even MORE traditional then most other Americans and women like that are certainly not going to marry someone expecting to have to work while he stays at home raising the kids. You are FAR more likely to find that sort of attitude in a gender-neutralized feminist, the women you claim to not like...

Actually that's the ultimate contradiction in the whole MRA movement. That you all want to be head of household again, which is achievable with very traditional women; but then also want to be in charge of the household and children in a way that no traditional woman would ever tolerate. Ultimately it's only a woman who was convinced that men and women are exactly alike in every way that would permit this OR in other words a gender neutralized feminist...

YET all MRAs claim you hate them.

That's your contradiction...which is the women you hate are perfect for you...


"That having been said, I sense that you are correct that for the vast majority of non-believing couples, inverting the wage strucure (woman breadwinner, man homemaker) also inverts the power structure."

Well of course it does. It's not just the money but the variety of experiences and people you are going to meet being able to go out to work everyday. The bottom line is that when you work you are out of sight from the other spouse, free of children and having 8 hours to do literally anything you want. I mean you can even call in sick and take the day off w/o mentioning it and spend it with someone else.

What limited female mobility in the past was probably having children attached to their apronstrings from a very early age. Situations like you are talking about are sure to change that equation...and men will NOT like being limited in that aspect I can tell you right now. That she's out there everyday and he's home...

Actually my ex used to try to screw my job up for that reason...He worked in the building we lived in (he was the manager of an apartment building) whereas I worked in an office. Everytime I had to work late or do something unusual for my job, he would get mad...and call my boss and argue...He could have gotten me fired. You see men are NOT used to the role of being a helpmate to a woman or her career and putting themselves into the back seat to advance her. They still want everything to revolve and focus on them, even though she's the primary breadwinner...
It's all part of the basic instinctual aggressiveness of males, wanting to be in charge of everything...

So you are not just talking about women going to work and men being home while presumbably everything else stays the same; but about changing very basic things about male and female personalities by switching roles like this and it's all part of the gender neutralized feminist manifesto...

Again, the basic contradiction of your movement.



"I just happen to think, based on observation alone, that women are more comfortable, more natural feeling, in a supportive role versus a leading role. They want to have security provided for them, not the other way around. This is why I think so many women are unhappy when they are the primary breadwinners and assume leadership of the home by default. Deep down, they'd rather the "stick" went to someone else."

It's not a "stick" as you call it but the natural order of things. If you wish to change it for you personally you will have to look for one of those gender neutralized feminist who is willing to go along with you on this...which means you are going to have to be good-looking probably (as it's only men who bring home an income who can get away with being sloppy, bald with bad breath) not so the stay-at-home husband...

AND you're right women are MORE comfortable with a man running things; but also very quick to become dissatisfied once he tries to invert the basic structure while still trying to keep everyone in the traditional roles. In other words you can't have your cake and eat it too...


"I have observed that many women seem to have the conceit that only they are really qualified to raise children. I assure you that this is not the case with most of my male friends who are fathers. Why does this bigotry exist?"

It's not a conceit. It's correct for 99% of women that they are the best person to raise their children...Mothers actually invest more in children; as what do men actually contribute to the whole thing pregnancy and delivery function?

AND in every species as well as our own, mothers bear and raise the young. Why should we change that because MRAs and a few feminists want to experiment on our kids???

They aren't little guinea pigs to be used in all kinds of weird social engineering experiments...


"Correct. And I fought for custody, not because of spite or craven lust for money, as is libelously assumed by many of your postings on this site, but because I believed that they would be better off overall with my having custody and their mother having visitation."

I'm sorry but I personally feel it is automatic abuse if a father tries to take custody from a fit mother.

However I am not against father involvement.

I sometimes post on a non-custodial mother's site where I advice some of the women and they've told me I helped them. I'm not going to post the website as I don't want them harrassed but maybe if you give me some details I can give you some helpful advice.

Elusive Wapiti said...

....It has nothing to do with a double standard but with a realistic one. Why would you think a woman would go through everything we go through to bring children into the world just to hand them over to someone else to raise?

Actually, the double-standard I was referring to was women denying the choice to work or not work to men, a choice that women happily take advantage of. "Choice for me, but not for thee". A tad hypocritical. Don't all you RadFems worship at the alter of gender equality?

Getting back to your point though, women hand over their children after birthing them all the time. It's called day care. So the point you just raised is a bit spurious. Unless you consider day care by minimum-wage strangers to be superior to that provided by a husband and father, in which case I shall write you off as terminally misandrist and beyond my help.

Me: "There is a couple I know where the female makes more than the male, and the male is preparing to quit work to stay at home with the children. They are also a believing, Christian household, where the male has headship of the family."

You: This is rare Elusive.

You: So don't plan your life around this happening and like many of these situations it came up AFTER the marriage and children were born. I seriously doubt if this woman went into this situation planning this. It's like friends I know who did it. They fell into it unplanned and most of the women involved resent their husbands because of it.


Yes, it is rare. And I agree with you that that stay-at-home fatherhood is not normally planned prior to marriage (see my point about hypocrisy above). But it does happen. And in the case that I cite, no she's not resentful. Yes, she'd rather be at home; but the best interests of the family and children outweigh her selfish desires.

I'm not trying to say that women are signing up to take on parasitic men as husbands. That flies in the face of reality, where most women are looking for a man to dupe into enabling the woman's parasitic desires, not the other way around. It would be foolish to even try to make that point.

Rather, the point that I am trying to make is that the kind of woman that I think is fit for a lasting marriage is one that is willing to sacrifice for her family and submit herself to their needs, just as her husband sacrifices for the family and subordinates himself to their needs. This woman is hard to find these days, since most women, as I infer by your characterizations of your sex during this discussion, seem to be concerned chiefly with power, control, and self-actualization. These traits are noxious to a stable marriage. No wonder there is so much divorce. It is also no wonder that its women who're pulling the trigger on all those marriages.

That's your contradiction...which is the women you hate are perfect for you...

That's a pretty big leap you are making here. Misandrist, short-haired, gender-neutralized women are not perfect for anyone other than, well, other misandrist, short-haired, gender-neutralized women. And their house full of cats--perfect for them, too. But certainly not perfect for men.

but about changing very basic things about male and female personalities by switching roles like this and it's all part of the gender neutralized feminist manifesto...

Again, the basic contradiction of your movement.


Umm, no. The interchangeable androgyny that you mention here is a feature of Feminism, not of "my movement". I assure you that most MRAs are very firm in their normative belief in the bifurcated nature of humanity. We are not gender-blurring Feminists in drag.

It's not a conceit. It's correct for 99% of women that they are the best person to raise their children


How do you KNOW that women are the best persons to raise children? I call this conceit because women seem to think that they are best caregivers in all situations, even when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Consider the social pathology in our society today. Just how many criminals come from single-mother homes? Child abusers? Molesters? Arsonists? Future divorcees? Welfare queens? Geniouses? Presidents? CEOs?

Need I go on?

I'm sorry but I personally feel it is automatic abuse if a father tries to take custody from a fit mother.

How is it not automatic abuse for children to be stripped from a fit father?

See above discussion about conceit.

Also, my 5 y.o. son cried on the phone last night with me, wishing I was there in person. His mother was /is the chief architect of his distress. How is that not abuse?

However I am not against father involvement

Oh, thank you very much. I suppose we men should be groveling at the mothers' collective feet for allowing us to be involved in our children's lives. Let me guess: I bet that involvement's on your [women's] terms, right?

This attitude is precisely why I advocate single fatherhood so much for those fellows so inclined. The sisterhood's crass treatment of fathers as second-class parents is a case in point. Men accept, even encourage a woman's unique contribution to children's development. Women do not reciprocate. I file this under conceit as well.

It is becoming apparent that we're starting to talk past each other here. There isn't much common ground between us given our differing worldviews and experiences. I grow weary of going around and around in circles, going nowhere.

I'm ready to call a cease-fire.

[Note: not a surrender. Never! :) ].

How about you?

PolishKnight said...

Hello Elusive Wapiti and NYMOM,

I get the impression that NYMOM is far from a radFEM and I sympathize with her situation in a post-feminist world. NYMOM invited me here because she found a proposition I suggested intriguing:

Both genders found something to gain out of feminism: Men wanted more casual nookie and especially in a society with a lack of legalized prostitution and pornography at the time, most men found the sexual climate stifling.

For women, the opposite end of the coin was mo' money. A lot of women bought into the myth they could "have it all": Fun exciting jobs when it suited them and running back home to the kitchen to become a Martha Stewart when they liked.

Do either of you remember a perfume ad on TV where a woman sang: "I can bring home the bacon! Fry it up in a pan! And never never never never let you forget you're a man! Because I'm a woman... (Avalene?)" I remember that it was wildly popular and stayed on the air for years.

Many men thought they would "get it all" and so did women. It's not just a "double standard" that women can't all marry and date up AND get the same opportunities as men, it's also statistically impossible. Also, as women continued to have children without men, the cost of the welfare state soared effectively straining working and middle class women and men even more.

Unfortunately, a lot of the current social momentum has the element of being in a hole: Many families have the women work because they feel a need for her to do so. Or the women worry about the possibility of divorce or not finding a breadwinning man to marry (both of which become self-fulfilling prophesies sometimes.

NYMOM said...

"Actually, the double-standard I was referring to was women denying the choice to work or not work to men, a choice that women happily take advantage of. "Choice for me, but not for thee". A tad hypocritical. Don't all you RadFems worship at the alter of gender equality?"

Unfortunately again, that's not a double standard, but a realistic one. As it wouldn't be fair to allow the person who has invested the most in children to then be relegated to the role of junior partner, so men who contribute little can then start running the whole show.


"Getting back to your point though, women hand over their children after birthing them all the time. It's called day care."

AND I have no argument with women who freely make this choice. Nor with your 'friends' where the wife will work and the husband will stay home and still think he's entitled to retain his status as 'head of household'...

My problem is when these situations then extend into the legal arena and men suddenly feel entitled to insist they have a right to these voluntary (and usually temporary role assignations). AND then Judges start making precedents based on these few, rare situations.

Then I take issue with it as it impacts ALL WOMEN then.


"That's a pretty big leap you are making here. Misandrist, short-haired, gender-neutralized women are not perfect for anyone other than, well, other misandrist, short-haired, gender-neutralized women. And their house full of cats--perfect for them, too. But certainly not perfect for men."

Not at all. You want a woman who will be career oriented enough that she'll return to work immediately after having kids, thus leaving you at home to raise them.

It's a rare traditional woman who will go along with this scenario willingly. You would probably have to FOOL her into this...a feminist, on the other hand, would see the role reversal as empowering. Since although you might deny it, a power shift would take place within the family as well, once the husband is at home and the wife is working...

AND feminists love this.


"How do you KNOW that women are the best persons to raise children? I call this conceit because women seem to think that they are best caregivers in all situations, even when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary."

No. There are many studies that show a child's mother does best when she cares for them. Even one just posted on SYG which of course, has all the MRAs over there dying of jealousy...


"Consider the social pathology in our society today. Just how many criminals come from single-mother homes? Child abusers? Molesters? Arsonists? Future divorcees? Welfare queens? Geniouses? Presidents? CEOs?

Need I go on?"

These items you cited are statistical LIES put out by men. You have taken the stats of ONE group of single mothers in this country (mostly African-Americans) and extrapolated them to every single mother; never admitting that much of the pathology of that entire group is due to their treatment in this country...and says NOTHING about single mothers as a whole.

MOST single mothers raise fine, law-abiding, decent children.

Clearly men are jealous of this.

AS when men walked out on marriage and family for casual sex in the 60s and 70s, I guess you thought women couldn't handle it. That we'd stop having children. Well life went on w/o you and never skipped a beat. Now you all want to be let in again (in your old role as head of household) and are mad because it's not happening.

That's what these lies are about.

"This attitude is precisely why I advocate single fatherhood so much for those fellows so inclined."

You can advocate it all you want. It won't be happening anytime soon. First of all MOST men are not that interested in children. Women are generally the ones who want kids. So men who don't get married will probably remain childless by choice.

Second of all you mentioned single parent adoptions. MOST American women keep their children today, few put them up for adoptions. AND it is very rare for other countries to allow single men to adopt. AND that rule comes from other MEN who know that few men are interested in children, so, of course, are suspicious of the motivations of single men who show up on their doorstep looking for children.

Not to mention male arrogance in thinking they can just show up in other countries looking for wives as well. It amazes me how western men don't see the arrogance displayed in these attitudes about other countries. That you think it's okay to be over there looking to take their women and/or children and that they would be okay with it...


"Also, my 5 y.o. son cried on the phone last night with me, wishing I was there in person. His mother was /is the chief architect of his distress. How is that not abuse?"

I told you before sometimes I advise women on other cites vis-a-vis custody/visitation issues. So did you want some advice on your situation????

I would recommend moving to the other state your wife relocated within. This will help in two ways.

One, it will move you closer to your son and in a better position to get a more generous visitation plan.

Two, it will (in six months) give you a different Judge. One not so invested in the original custody/visitation decision as he or she didn't make the initial ruling. So the chances are better that they will favor you. Since in spite of what many men believe, courts today favor fathers more so then mothers. So each time a woman returns to court for ANY reason, especially if she gets a different Judge, she's at risk of losing the case.

So your ex moving might ultimately wind up benefitting you as she has now placed herself at the mercy of a different Judge...

Many women don't understand this; thus, they still believe the propaganda that mothers are favored in courts. But, I have frequently observed the opposite and seen where a moveaway results in a change of custody a year or so after the fact due to suddenly getting a different Judge...

PolishKnight said...

Hello NYMOM!

"Actually, the double-standard I was referring to was women denying the choice to work or not work to men, a choice that women happily take advantage of. "Choice for me, but not for thee". A tad hypocritical. Don't all you RadFems worship at the alter of gender equality?"

Unfortunately again, that's not a double standard, but a realistic one. As it wouldn't be fair to allow the person who has invested the most in children to then be relegated to the role of junior partner, so men who contribute little can then start running the whole show.


I'm tempted to joke and say that you're making an incredibly sexist statement. :-) Seriously though, lots of mothers do contribute little and sadly, they often get the most alimony. The wife of a wealthy executive who played tennis all day and had a team of nannies looking after her kids is going to be get far more credit in a divorce than an Oliver Twist trailer-park housewife who washed the children's clothes in a river and home-schooled them through medical school.

That ain't fair either, for ANYONE (ok, for most anyone :-)

If the legal system has a precedent to allow women equal opportunity in the workplace then it follows, from "fairness", that what's good for the gander should apply in all other legal arenas as well and let the social marketplace work things out. Unfortunately, we talked of the consequences of this: Many middle class professionalwomen wind up going single and even childless rather than marry down with the numbers made up through immigration. Neither of us like this, but trying to give women the best of both worlds is kind of like giving a heroin addict more cash: It just helps them along in their habit. The culture will continue to think women can "have it all" as long as that's what the legal and political establishment tells them EVEN IF WE BOTH KMOW it's not true. Kapish?

My problem is when these situations then extend into the legal arena and men suddenly feel entitled to insist they have a right to these voluntary (and usually temporary role assignations). AND then Judges start making precedents based on these few, rare situations.

Then I take issue with it as it impacts ALL WOMEN then.


What about men then? Did it ever occur to you that viewing the world in terms of women versus men is the whole basis of the "feminist" dichotomy? How can you expect men, who still largely in charge of most things, to be fair in the long run and give women the vote and equal employment rights if you think that the whole legal system should revolve around what's fair for women? Then again, maybe this is a perfect example of why they shouldn't: Men have shown that they are largely protectors of women (chivalry) AND liberators (modern western democracy). Feminism and equal rights for women has had a less impressive track record in what it does for men or children.

Not at all. You want a woman who will be career oriented enough that she'll return to work immediately after having kids, thus leaving you at home to raise them.

I don't know if that's what he "wants". But even if he does, so what? Lots of women watch romance films where rich, hot looking guys fall in love with nerdy, plain looking women and beg for their attention and shower them with gifts. Both scenarios do happen from time to time. I think he's already aware from some of the unpleasant things he's said about such career women that he's not getting his hopes up in either case.

It's a rare traditional woman who will go along with this scenario willingly. You would probably have to FOOL her into this...a feminist, on the other hand, would see the role reversal as empowering. Since although you might deny it, a power shift would take place within the family as well, once the husband is at home and the wife is working...

AND feminists love this.


Define "traditional" professional career woman. For a woman to be such a beast, she either has to work both tasks: Traditional motherhood AND also compete with men who are driven by the demand to be a breadwinner. Many women accomplish this and are happy with the burden in exchange for what they get, but some wind up exhausted and either dropping out or worse: ruining their marriage and harming their family.

FYI: "Feminists" love it when relationships don't work out rather than husbands staying at home because it gives them and the socialist state more leverage over weak, needy women moreso than empowered married women.

"How do you KNOW that women are the best persons to raise children? I call this conceit because women seem to think that they are best caregivers in all situations, even when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary."

No. There are many studies that show a child's mother does best when she cares for them. Even one just posted on SYG which of course, has all the MRAs over there dying of jealousy...


As Elusive Wapiti points out:

Most criminals come from single mother households. Period. No matter how you measure it. Proportionately or absolutely. Across all demographic and racial groups. Here's why: single fathers generally are better at laying down the law than women are and this makes a HUGE difference when children are coming of age. I don't doubt that mothers may do a better job with nursing (they have the equipment) and certainly with naturally going crazy over infants, but children aren't at that growth stage forever. Maybe it would be best, all things considered, to have young children raised by mothers and older ones raised by fathers.

That's "fair". Note I didn't say that fathers were better parents or vice versa. Only that they bring different skill sets to the table. Oh, and this ties neatly into our other discussion about men maybe buying artificial wombs if they ever become available. It's simply laughable because women are far more likely to go baby-ga-ga than men.

Need I go on?"

These items you cited are statistical LIES put out by men. You have taken the stats of ONE group of single mothers in this country (mostly African-Americans) and extrapolated them to every single mother; never admitting that much of the pathology of that entire group is due to their treatment in this country...and says NOTHING about single mothers as a whole.


I love how you danced on the edge of the fence there: You basically painted a finger at "African-Americans" as criminals but then turned around and gave them some pity points as victims. This is very politically correct even if it isn't very flattering...

This begs the question: How have they been treated? Lessee: The government has bent over backwards to provide financial support (especially to single mothers) living near the largest metropolis areas of the world. 150 years ago, Chinamen and Irish immigrants worked 16 hour work days under far more grueling conditions and made something of themselves from the moment they hit US soil.

Indeed, now we have a good explanation for why SO MANY of these children turn out to be criminals: It's not their fault in the eyes of people like you. I'm sure Nicole Simpson's family will be happy to hear that it's due to racism that their sister and daughter died.

You then try a bit of misdirection when you argue:

MOST single mothers raise fine, law-abiding, decent children

And who says that MOST single fathers raise criminals? On the contrary, single fathers turn out MORE law abiding children. So then, if you argue that as long as the majority of the children turned out don't kill anyone, why NOT give the kids over to fathers in equal numbers?

Clearly men are jealous of this.

Not only do men turn out more kids who aren't criminals, but they do it also usually without depending upon welfare or child-support. They're simply a-friggin' amazing, doncha think? Imagine, say, if men were on welfare or support AND turning out the majority of criminals. Taking away kids from ALL of them would be a slam dunk!

AS when men walked out on marriage and family for casual sex in the 60s and 70s, I guess you thought women couldn't handle it. That we'd stop having children.

Lessee: That's just about when single welfare African-American mother families began to show up in droves and start driving up the crime rates. Yeah, great job. Clearly, the welfare state was racist by giving single mothers financial support...

The childbirth rate of professional women plummeted (especially in Europe and recently in the states) and the state had to start gestapo like means to track down "deadbeat dads" to pay child-support to women who had kids that the father didn't want (how to explain THAT to the child?)

Well life went on w/o you and never skipped a beat.

Yeah, other than billions of dollars in welfare and special programs to help such women and their children (who wound up producing incredible numbers of criminals), everything just went peachy...

Well life went on w/o you and never skipped a beat. Now you all want to be let in again (in your old role as head of household) and are mad because it's not happening.

I've argued that men have to accept some of the responsibility for the sexual revolution but at the same time, it's clear that the last 40 years has been dedicated to empowering women first and foremost. Good men were often kicked out and shredded by the divorce courts. Even today, most of the men getting married are taking a huge incredible risk and putting their fortunes and lives on the line. They deserve a lot of credit because otherwise, you might as well kiss all this goodbye.

"This attitude is precisely why I advocate single fatherhood so much for those fellows so inclined."

You can advocate it all you want. It won't be happening anytime soon. First of all MOST men are not that interested in children. Women are generally the ones who want kids. So men who don't get married will probably remain childless by choice.


Amazing. We agree. In fact, I said this quite some time ago when you were being chicken-little and proclaiming that men would all buy up artificial wombs. Now we see that men will lie back and just let women become single moms and turn out criminals or slackers (assuming that the government as we know it is still around by then.)

Not to mention male arrogance in thinking they can just show up in other countries looking for wives as well. It amazes me how western men don't see the arrogance displayed in these attitudes about other countries. That you think it's okay to be over there looking to take their women and/or children and that they would be okay with it...

Why not? If your son or daughter showed up at your doorstep with a wealthy Belgian who wanted to significantly improve their standard of living and start a healthy, happy family, would you sneer at them? Most countries are PROUD of their women's beauty and they aren't going to get too upset if someone shows up saying they find their women desirable. What's better? "Don't worry! We won't bother your women! They're fat and spoiled!"

Many women don't understand this; thus, they still believe the propaganda that mothers are favored in courts. But, I have frequently observed the opposite and seen where a moveaway results in a change of custody a year or so after the fact due to suddenly getting a different Judge...

It's interesting that you can toss out the easily observed bias in family courts while turning around and blaming incredibly high African American crime rates on nebulous racism. Quite simply: If family court was making an effort to be fair, we'd be reading about huge investigations and studies to expose pro-female bias and commissions such as a "bias against men in family courts act". By the same token, a government that spends TRILLIONS on all kinds of legislation to protect minorities and women probably isn't controlled by frothing racists and woman haters.

NYMOM said...

I see that you distorted every single thing I said; so I'm not going to argue with you except about one point I made which you deliberately misstated...

I said you took the statistics regarding AFri-Amer. single mothers and extrapolated them to EVERY SINGLE MOTHER...that's one thing.

The other thing is that I do NOT believe that Afri-Amer. young men are in trouble in this country due to their MOTHERS...as it's a far bigger problem then that...and has little to do with their mothers...

Although men have tried to blame these things on single mothers.

Which btw, you men also lied about the statistics of mothers paying child support. AGAIN taking the statistics of the Afri.-Amer. community and applying them across the board to every non-custodial mother and thus implicating every woman.

AND btw, single fathers do NOT raise better children. Those are more statistical lies put out by men. Actually custodial father households spend far less on food, medical care and education for children...

Actually both of those women whose sons were killed Sheehan and Kesterson were non-custodial mothers. So it was their fathers who talked those young men in going into the army. BOTH probably would have been in college if that hadn't happened...

You are somebody who uses statistics to support the lies of men; as supposed to throwing light on complicated situations.

Thus you yourself are a liar.

NYMOM said...

You are out of here Polish Knight.

First you tried to play the race card here by trying to imply that I'm a racist.

In fact it is MRAs who are racist (or should I say opportunists) by using statistics from Afr. Amer. men and trying to extrapolate them to ALL men to try and make yourselves look like victims.

When, in fact, you are not...

Second, I told you before this is NOT going to be turned into a site where we sit around all day comparing statistics and citations trying to show how bad mothers really are.

Sorry, go back to MND to play that game.

You are NOT doing it here.

Third and lastly, the ONLY reason I invited you here originally was because I thought you had some interesting insights regarding feminists after you made the comment that feminists appear to be moving towards a more puritanical viewpoint regarding sex.

Then after you got here, you claimed (very stupidly I might add) that the reason feminists are changing their minds is just to aggravate men...I should have booted you from this site right then; but I was raised by nuns and one of my biggest failings (which I picked up from them) is to give too many second chances...

So I allowed you to continue posting...

Anyway, it's pretty obvious to me and probably most thinking people WHY feminists have changed their minds in this area.

Originally feminists took the viewpoint that women treating sex the way men did was empowering. However after 40 years of observation, feminists are finally realizing that there is no limit to men's capacity to use women for sex ONLY, no limit whatsoever. Thus, this feminist support of free love, casual sex, etc., has resulted in millions of women unable to get married or have any children since men today will rarely commit or commit so late that women are physically unable to have families by the time you jerks get around to committing.

Thus, I believe that feminists have come to the conclusion that women should NOT indulge in casual sex as few men will marry if they can get sex outside of marriage.

Probably feminists are just too embarrassed to admit to this new insight which has probably been around since the bible was first written or earlier.

The wisdom of the ancients...

In essence, women sharing ourselves freely and assuming we were dealing with responsible adult males has allowed modern western men to remain stuck on stupid and continue acting like irresponsible teenagers far longer then most of us would have thought possible.

THAT'S the real reason feminists are turning back to encouraging more puritanical behavior on the part of women towards sex, if they are even doing it. As I took your word for it that is was happening w/o actually asking for a citiation.

Anyway, you're full of it and have been since I first invited you here. You've had nothing interesting to say and instead continue inciting arguments with me over every single thing I say or post or write on this blog and guess what...

My blog, my rules, so bye...go back where you came from and talk crap about women.

Anonymous said...

Dear NYMOM,

I honestly do not mind you having the last word, but you would think you would at least leave my comments intact considering your responding to them! It makes it difficult, for your own sake, for any readers to consider the validity of your points in context.

Farewell and good luck to you. I regret that we cannot disagree on some things on more friendly terms.

PolishKnight

NYMOM said...

"I honestly do not mind you having the last word, but you would think you would at least leave my comments intact considering your responding to them! It makes it difficult, for your own sake, for any readers to consider the validity of your points in context."

I told you I would erase your last comment here and I did. However so as not to appear to be unfair I would put it back if I could.

Unfortunately I can't.

But if you saved it and wish to repost it, I will allow you to do so...

I was just getting tired of the arguing as I initially invited you here because I thought you had some interesting things to say about feminism's new morality...

Additionally I had someone else here at the same time who was of the same calibre with the constant asking for cites and studies and a million snide shots at me buried within his posts and I just got tired of it all.