Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Example of Quick Strike "Temporary Custody" Strategy that Men are Advised to Use...

This is a good example of what I was talking about recently (and which Richard denied happens) when men rush down to the courthouse to file for temporary custody (and as I said before it usually morphs into permanent)...

These childrens' mothers will find out from the news that another member of the Jackson family has custody of their children now...one, who I might add, Michael Jackson himself claims often stood by silently while his father abused him...

But this doesn't happen according to our resident expert Richard...

Oh well!!!!

Jackson's family moves quickly to take charge

By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer Anthony Mccartney, Ap Entertainment Writer – Mon Jun 29, 7:39 pm ET

LOS ANGELES – Michael Jackson's family moved quickly Monday to take control of his complicated personal and financial affairs, winning temporary custody of his three children and asking a judge to name the King of Pop's mother as administrator of his estate.

In documents filed in Superior Court, Jackson's parents said they believe their 50-year-old son died without a valid will.

They also made it clear they believe they should take charge of both his debt-ridden but potentially lucrative financial empire and act as permanent caretakers of his three children.

Judge Mitchell Beckloff granted 79-year-old Katherine Jackson temporary guardianship of the children, who range in age from 7 to 12. He did not immediately rule on her requests to take charge of the children's and Jackson's estates.

Beckloff scheduled a hearing for July 6 and another for Aug. 3 to consider those issues and whether Katherine Jackson should be appointed the children's permanent guardian.

L. Londell McMillan, the family's attorney, said in a statement that the Jacksons are pleased with the results of their Monday filings.

"Mrs. Jackson deserves custody, and the family should have the administration of the brilliance of Mr. Michael Jackson. Mrs. Jackson is a wonderful, loving and strong woman with a special family many of us have admired for years. The personal and legal priorities are focused on first protecting the best interests of Mr. Michael Jackson's children, his family, his memorial services and then preserving his creative and business legacy with the dignity and honor it deserves."

When Jackson died Thursday, he left behind a 12-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter by his ex-wife Deborah Rowe, as well as a 7-year-old son born to a surrogate mother.

The Jackson family said the children — Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. (known as Prince Michael), Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and Prince Michael II — are living at the Jackson family compound in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley.

"They have a long established relationship with paternal grandmother and are comfortable in her care," the family said in court documents.

Family patriarch Joe Jackson, 79, said at a news conference that the children were enjoying playing with other kids — something they do not normally do.

The documents state that although Rowe is the mother of the two older children, her whereabouts are unknown. The document simply listed "none" for the mother of the youngest child, Prince Michael II.

Supporting Katherine Jackson in her petition bid to administer the estate was Jackson's father, Joe Jackson.

The Jacksons say they have not heard from Rowe since their son's death. Rowe's attorney, Marta Almli, did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment Monday. She previously said, "Ms. Rowe's only thoughts at this time have been regarding the devastating loss Michael's family has suffered."

Mark Lester, a former British child star who is godfather to Jackson's children, told The Associated Press he believes they belong with Jackson's mother.

"She is a very loving, kind and gracious woman, and she had a very close relationship with Michael and a very good rapport with her grandchildren," Lester said. "I know the kids are fine. They are deeply saddened by what's happened, but they're coping."

Meanwhile, authorities continued to investigate Jackson's death. Officials with the Los Angeles County coroner's office returned to the mansion he was renting at the time of his death and left with two large plastic bags of evidence.

Assistant Chief Coroner Ed Winter said the bags contained medication. He declined to elaborate.

Lawyers for Jackson's cardiologist Dr. Conrad Murray said the physician never prescribed the powerful drugs Demerol or Oxycontin for Jackson and did all he could to revive him when he found the entertainer near death.

Attorney Matt Alford told the AP it took as long as 30 minutes for paramedics to be called after Murray found Jackson with a faint pulse and performed CPR.

The delay was partly because Jackson's room in the rented mansion didn't have a telephone and Murray didn't know Jackson's street address to give to emergency crews, Alford said.

Eventually, Murray found a chef in the house and had him summon a security guard, who called for help while the doctor continued to perform CPR.

Jackson's father told reporters at the family compound that his son's funeral was still in the planning stages.

"It will be some private, but not closed all the way down to the public," he said without elaborating.

He added that his son would not be buried at Neverland Ranch, the sprawling playground he built in the rolling hills of Santa Barbara County then abandoned after going into seclusion following his acquittal on child molestation charges in 2005.

Jackson's father also used the news conference to plug a record company he said he's founding with a business partner.

"We have a lot of good artists pitching to come out," he said.

His son, who had not released a new recording or performed publicly in years, was believed to be hundreds of millions of dollars in debt at the time of his death. However, his finances are complicated and could take years to unravel.

Clearly one of his most valuable assets is his recording catalog, which his father could potentially rerelease through his new record company if the family gains control of his assets. There could also be recordings in Jackson's estate that he had never released.

The AP learned that Jackson had finished an elaborate video production project just two weeks before he died. The five-week project dubbed "Dome Project" could be the final finished video piece overseen by the star.

There's also a financial bonanza to be had in the Sony/ATV Music Publishing catalog of which Jackson owned 50 percent. The 750,000-song catalog includes music by the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Lady Gaga and the Jonas Brothers, and is estimated to be worth as much as $2 billion.

"Quite frankly, he may be worth more dead than alive," Jerry Reisman, general counsel for the Hit Factory, a recording studio where Jackson produced his best-selling album "Thriller," said recently.

Jackson nearly lost his beloved Neverland, which was once filled with amusement park rides and wild animals, to foreclosure in March. Billionaire real estate investor Thomas Barrack bailed him out at the 11th hour, setting up a joint venture with Jackson that took ownership of the 2,500-acre property.

The ranch's future is uncertain, but three of Jackson's brothers visited the estate with Barrack over the weekend. A spokesman for the holding company that now operates it said it was premature to talk about the ranch's future.


Associated Press writers Gregory Katz in London and Nekesa Mumbi Moody in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Here's a re-post on Chivalry to Straighten Out Polish Knight's Confusion about It's Origins...

Ummm, we might need to revoke Polish Knight's knighthood and he'll have to revert to just being called Polish if he doesn't 'get' now what chivalry was really about...

SUNDAY, JUNE 12, 2005
Regarding Chivalry and its Historic Origins

I just wanted to do a post on Chivalry as I've noticed a lot of confusion about it's origins lately and many men attempting to distort historic Chivalry to give themselves much undeserved credit today.

First of all Chivalry was NEVER about women or how men treated us, that was an afterthought that was tacked on to it in an effort to paint Chivalry as much more then it was long after the fact; while at the same time allowing western men the pat on the back (that they love so much) for being such all-around great fellows.

In fact, the origins of Chivalry are rooted in one of men's favorite pursuits namely war and how men are supposed to conduct it honorable and treat each OTHER during it's commission...It has always been closer to the Geneva Convention and battlefield morality including the treatment of prisoners of war; as opposed to a code of conduct relative to the treatment of women and/or children...

Eventually Chivalry appears to have evolved to include the wives and children of the higher social orders within it's environs; but by no means was it ever what men try to paint it as today, which is some sort of code of courtesy and just or kind treatment by All MEN applicable to ALL WOMEN...

This is just ridiculous...and actually from reading some of the material below it mostly seemed to function vis-a-vis noble women as treating them chivalrously when men were interested in getting laid...Very similar to the 'code of chivalrous conduct' as practiced at any modern singles bar you walk in today...Men being on their best behavior in the earlier part of the evening, spending extra money on drinks, dinner, etc., in the hopes of attracting the attention of a pretty woman so that she'll agree to spend the later part of the evening in his bed...

I guess that branch of Chivalry could be called Chivalry Lite...

Actually to be perfectly honest from my interpretation of the material below, it appeared that men could be considered chivalrous and STILL rape and murder women as well as kill children...that was no bar to being considered historically chivalrous ...

Anyway, we could just ignore men's' constant attempt to distort historic Chivalry (and to falsely make it about their kindly behavior towards women and children then and now) as being just another example of the meaningless "circle jerks" they endlessly engage in, but I think it's important to address this particular distortion of history...

Now, you might ask why?

Well because for one reason men are now indignant it appears and organizing long running cyber grip sessions (which they call mens rights groups) that spend most of their time complaining that women are being treated with too much chivalry now and that it puts men at a disadvantage. For instance, now men have to spend a couple of hundred dollars going out on a date in order to get sex outside of marriage.

Is this fair they say?

Additionally now women have obtained the same inalienable rights as men. Well whose's dumb idea was that, they keep asking? After all following the logic of Chivalry, all women needed to exist would be given to us through the Chivalry of men...AS IT WAS IN OUR PAST...so what do women need rights for now, after all this time...

I mean I often get the impression that it's almost as if men feel insulted that women would even demand rights...

That's correct...women should just be willing to depend upon the just and kindly actions of individual men as opposed to having inalienable rights like they have. After all, according to men, it was such a better world when women HAD to depend upon their fathers and husbands to decide everything for them and since MOST men, according to the Chivalry myth, were protective of the weaker sex, what in the hell did woman need to go and get rights for...it just complicated things.

Go figure.

It might appear to the casual observer that perhaps men have overstated historic chivalrous benefit to women and that's why women wanted rights just as men have; After all men didn't just sit back and wait for the rights of men to be handed to them by a benevolent king or other ruler, did they?

So why should women...

I find it interesting that men have NO problem vastly exaggerating the benefits of chivalry for women, yet appear quite blind to the benefits men obtained through feminism...

I mean let's face it women being allowed into the workforce has taken a tremendous financial support burden off of men, a tremendous one; and women being allowed to freely engage in sex with whatever man takes their fancy has allowed men to delay marriage indefinitely (or never marry at all) yet STILL fulfill their sexual urges with no societal repercussions whatsoever against them (until the recent imposition of excessive child support demands in the event men got careless and one of their partner became pregnant) but even this was ONLY imposed after two decades of men's' flagrant abuse of the new sexual freedom feminism allowed MEN...

Thus men brought that aspect of it upon themselves.

Still a reasonably careful and responsible man today has unlimited freedom to do pretty much whatever he wants, as long as he takes proper precautions and for THAT he has feminism to thank...for the gains women won under feminism frequently pass down to men for their benefit as well...

Let men think about that the next time they enjoy casual sex with some woman they have no intention of marrying, might never even know her proper name...they can thank a feminist for that.


Now before we go on to the article I will give a brief recap of what Chivalry is NOT...for those who might be a little slow on the uptake.

Chivalry is NOT spending money on dinner and drinks when you go on a date. Many men do that to get laid.

Chivalry is NOT seeing a pretty girl stranded on the roadside and pulling over to help her change her tire. Again, a whole lot of men do that for other reasons that have NOTHING to do with Chivalry.

Chivalry is NOT holding a door open for someone. Many people do this for others, it doesn't mean you've just done some special favor for a woman and now she owes you something for it.

Chivalry is NOT about usually being the one to pay for vacations or other special events...The bottom line is that most men make more money so generally if you want someone to accompany you somewhere and they don't have the funds, you pay for them or they just don't come. Go by your damn self if you have so many issues spending money on other people...If I want somebody's company at dinner and I know they don't have enough money to pay their share, I'll invite them and pay for them myself if I want their company bad enough...If I don't, then I'll just go alone...It's that simple...nothing to do with chivalry...

There are a million and one other similar situations that women find themselves in that are falsely painted as Chivalry when they aren't, but I'm not going to cover everyone of them now since I think my main point is pretty clear.

In essence, chivalry is NOT doing nice things for others in order to get advantage for yourself...


Anyway, on to the article.


Chivalry was a peculiarity of the practice of war in medieval Europe. It can be likened to the Code of Bushido produced in very similar feudal Japanese society. The feudal knight was supposed to be devout, honest, selfless, just, brave, honorable, obedient, kind, charitable, generous, and kind to women. Sort of a heavily armed Boy Scout . His life was to some extent governed by complex rituals and rules, and he belonged to a quasi-religious international brotherhood.

There were numerous examples of truly chivalrous conduct during the Hundred Years' War. Thus, the Black Prince accorded Jean II of France all the deference due him as a king, even though Jean was a prisoner of war. And Jean, having been released from captivity in England to help negotiate his ransom, voluntarily returned when one of his sons, who had been standing surety for his return, escaped from England.

These were deeds celebrated throughout Europe. There was, however, another side to chivalry. Many French --and several English-- defeats in the war can be traced to a bit too much concern for knightly honor, such as Crecy and Agincourt.

And, of course, chivalry extended only to certain classes of society. The code did not restrain a person of rank in his dealings with the lower orders.

Operations in which an army treated the local inhabitants with any degree of respect were rare. Henry V was kind to the French commoners as a matter of policy, not chivalry. Henry wanted to win the loyalty of the French people and he was often successful at it. But he was in many ways unusual.

More often the march of an army through an area --whether friendly or not-- was marked by looting, arson, rape, torture, murder, and all the other usual atrocities, while hunger and disease brought up the rear. Thus, the Black Prince (Henry Vs great uncle) caused thousands of women and children to be put to the sword during the sack of Limoges.

And perhaps 12,000 commoners starved to death between the lines during Henry V's siege of Rouen in 1418-1419, the garrison having driven all the "useless mouths" in the town outside the walls, while the besiegers refused to let them pass their lines of investment.

Much of what has passed down to us regarding chivalry has to do with that aspect of it involving noble men pursuing other mens wives. The "rules" for this game are roughly as follows;

1 Worship of the chosen lady
2 Declaration of passionate devotion
3 Virtuous rejection by the lady
4 Renewed wooing with oaths of eternal fealty
5 Moans of approaching death from unsatisfied desire
6 Heroic deeds of valor which win the lady's heart
7 Consummation of the secret love
8 Endless adventures and subterfuges
9 Tragic denouement

Item 6 was often played out at tournaments , where the lady in question could watch her lover roar through the lists and make his mark jousting. Item 7 often took place the evening after the brave kinght won the tournament. Item 8 involved trying to keep the lady's husband in the dark and item 9 was the result of the husband discovering he was a cuckold.

Like the Code Bushndo, the Code of Chivalry seems to have been honored mostly in the breach.

Orders of Chivalry

During the 14th century, it became quite fashionable for kings and magnates to establish "Orders of Chivalry." Some of these still survive in England. These were not merely high honors. The members of the order were normally expected to stand with the master in battle, as did Sir Thomas Erpingham, chief of the archers at Agincourt.

-Order of the Garter (1348) founded by King Edward III of England.

The ribbon around the shield signifies the status of Order of the Garter. The words Honi soit qui mal y pense mean "Ashamed be he who thinks ill of it."

-Order of the Star (1351), King John II of France founded it in response to Edward's creation of the Garter.

-The Breton Order of Ermine (1382), founded by Duke Jean IV.

-The Golden Apple (1394), Knights of Auvergne and Bourbonnais.

-The Orleanist Porcupine (1396)

-The Golden Shield (1414), The Duke of Bourbon.

-The Dragon (c.1414), The Count of Foix.

-The Prisoner's Chain (1415), The Duke of Bourbon.

-Order of the Golden Fleece (1430), founded by Philip the Good of Burgundy, "From the great love we bear to the noble order of chivalry, whose honour and prosperity are our only concern... and for the furtherance of virtue and good manners." The Dukes of Burgundy placed at the Order's disposal the resources of their enormous wealth. In their view, the order was to serve not only as a symbol of their power; it could also be used to tie together the scattered dominions of the Burgundian state.

The lamb at the bottom represents membership in the Order of the Golden Fleece. This order technically still exists within the gift of the King of Spain (who inherits it through a very complex series of marriages in the early 16th Century), but it has not been awarded in some time.

-The Crescent (1448), Rene of Anjou.

-The Green Shield of the White Lady (?), The 2nd Marshal of Bouccicaut.

Information courtesy of the following website:

Now in the interest of clarifying for men what Chivalry IS, as I already listed for you what it is NOT, I will list two modern-day examples of Chivalry. Obviously since MOST men today are not involved in warfare anymore as we have a professional army that carries out national defense for us; many of you have become confused as to Chivalry's origins and meaning.

First example: How the United States responded to the defeat of Germany and Japan AFTER WWII, that was Chivalry.

Actually that was Chivalry's finest hour if we are being honest about it.

Whereas the Soviet Union in East Germany and Europe ran amok raping and pillaging on a grand scale and subjecting Eastern Europe to almost 50 years of stealing their resources to be shipped back home to Mother Russia (at fixed prices) and terror (which was the traditional way you treated your enemies) ; we, the United States enabled Germany (as well as Japan) to rebuild their economies as well as strengthen their governmental structures to ensure their society's stability. Actually we allowed their societies to thrive.

Many said afterwards that the United States benefitted from both of our former enemies being stabilizied and that's true...But guess what, there are PLENTY of ways to 'stabilize' people and the barrel of gun can stabilize people too, as we saw in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union didn't have a LOT of trouble from any of the East Block nations ( especially after they saw what happened with Hungary) using their methods of stabilization either.

Anyway, long story short, both of these ferocious enemies of the United States were eventually allowed to achieved the exact same economic success that the United States did and EVEN TO SURPASS THE United States in many areas such as electronics, cars, etc.,

This, in spite of the knowledge, that if they had won the war I can assure you that the United States would NOT have been allowed the same leeway.

I can assure you of that.

Thus the above example is an example of Chivalry...

Second example of Chivalry: Treatment of prisoners taken in war on terrorism.

We have a moment here to once again either individually or collectively display Chivalry. Actually the situation that exists right now with the prisoners taken in the war on terror could be a BETTER example of Chivalry then WWII, as the prisoners taken in the war on terror are not covered by any other code such as the Geneva Convention.

Thus it is entirely in our hands how they are treated.

History is replete with examples of people taken as prisoners eventually becoming leaders of governments or movements that returned to haunt their former captors.

Attilla the Hun was held as an adolescent captive in a Roman household.

Elizabeth I was imprisoned numerous times, close to death during everyone of them. After she finally became Queen, I wouldn't have wanted to be a member of a family that mistreated her in their household during the numerous house arrests she was subject to.

Gandhi was arrested in South Africa and then by the British in India numerous times.

Martin Luther King was also placed in prison in the US on a number of occasions. Concerning Martin Luther King the biggest embarrassment MOST of the Southern states (and people within them) exhibit today is HOW THEY TREATED KING during the civil rights era.

I only hope that we are not going to be looking back 50 or so years from now and being embarrassed about how we are treating our prisoners of war in Gitmo now.

Remember one thing acts of Chivalry are generally individual acts, not government mandated ones. Which means that basically each and every individual soldier, doctor or others who come in contact with a prisoner of war has the opportunity to act with Chivalry without having to get permission from anyone. It's up to each person's individual code of honor how they act. Does this mean go and put yourself or others in danger trying to be Chivalrious. No. Yet it does mean that each individual should conduct themselves honorably during each and every encounter with a prisoner of war.

Just look at it this way. If you run into a former prisoner of war 20 years from now walking in the Rose Garden with a President of the US, are you going to have to duck behind a tree embarrassed about your conduct towards him when he was at your mercy OR will you be able to stand up and let him see your face, maybe walk over and say hello...

So that's it, the wrap up on Chivalry...nothing to do with women in their role as mothers, nevertheless relevant to mothers today, since after all, every one of those prisoners of war has a mother.

posted by NYMOM | Sunday, June 12, 2005

Pseudo-Adrienne said...
"I find it interesting that men have NO problem vastly exaggerating the benefits of chivalry for women, yet appear quite blind to the benefits men obtained through feminism..."

And yet some still rant and rave against us and they can't (or refuse) see the benefits the Second Wave feminists brought them. 'Third Wavers' like me are astonished by this and are now fully aware of what we'll be dealing with; not only ungrateful, but historically-challenged, immature bunch of fellas who miss their privileges and control over women's every action.

So I want the same inalienable rights as them, a career, and equal wages so I can earn money of my own and pay for things myself, and not listen to some guy gripe about having to pay for everything? And I want to have a single thought, opinion, or just do something, without having to get permission from dear ole dad or hypothetical husband to do so? Is that what they're really complaining about? Me and women being in control of our destinies? (I know it is, I'm just being rhetorical and sarcastic)
1:57 AM

NYMOM said...
Actually I think MEN are madder at THEMSELVES than at women...

Since much of this crap they complain about now regards things that were instituted with men's full cooperation and approval in the past...

Like even birth control and abortion...

MEN were just as happy as women when these things became available, as it freed women to have casual sex WITH MEN and not have to worry about getting pregnant...This freed men to have MORE casual sex w/o having to rush into marrying a woman they hardly knew, just because they got her pregnant...

ALL OF THE MEN loved that freedom then, they all wanted to be like that Hugh Hefner and they got their wish...

NOW they're mad...

Yet I didn't hear any men complaining about it back in the 60s and 70s...

I think they thought women would fall to pieces w/o MEN in charge of their lives...

Well guess what in spite of their phony statistics about single mothers, MOST SINGLE MOTHERS raise their children just fine...

Men THOUGHT when they decided NOT to get married any more that the world would stop revolving...

Well guess what, it didn't, it didn't skip a beat and many women went right on having their families alone, w/o marriage...

That's what men are really mad about.

They took themselves out of the game and the game went right on w/o them...so now they're struggling to get back into it...but, of course, wanting to be head of the family again, after going missing in action for a generation or two...

Lots of luck with that one...women are NOT going to be so quick to trust them again or want to give up control of our own lives now that we've established them...

Next time they'll think twice before walking away from the 'title'...
1:11 PM

Callum said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12:52 PM

NYMOM said...
As I told you before you are no longer welcome here...
5:11 PM

thenorwichblog said...
What self-indulgence is this? Chivalry is practiced within Europe only - it is not something that an American woman would or could understand in the context of her own short and bloody history. Let me open the door of enlightenment for you and say simply this: Sir Thomas Erpingham, KG.
6:12 AM

NYMOM said...
America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and a few other countries that I can't recall right now are the 'heirs' of European history. Thus, a common heritage and history is shared by all...

Anyone with any understanding of western civilization should understand this w/o being told...

So wake up.
9:51 AM
Post a Comment

Okay, another Re-Post on an Important Issue

Actually I guess maybe Richard was half-right...

When I re-read my post I see that educated women do marry but are less likely to have children and their divorce rates are higher...but I re-posted the article anyway since it did make some other important points.

As usual I re-posted it with the comments as sometimes they are better then the articles.

Professional/Careerist Women More Likely to Divorce

Sometimes, in spite of every attempt to stop it, anecdotal evidence and plain old fashioned common sense will align with statistics and arrive at a logical conclusion.

This appears to be one of those rare occasions.

Obviously any relationship with BOTH parties focusing on their careers is not going to be one that puts the relationship FIRST. As let’s face it a career (not just a job as the author points out) but a career is not just a time consuming enterprise, but it’s a life-defining one as well. As in: I am a doctor (not a mom or dad who happened to work in medicine; or I am a police officer (not a husband or wife in law enforcement).

Generally you are what your career is.

AND I think that’s the way it should be.

As frankly, I don’t want someone in medicine or law enforcement who is just putting in their 8 hours until they can get home to do what they are really interested in. I want that doctor taking care of me when I’m sick to be obsessed with his specialty since about the age of 10 or so, when he or she was probably dissecting their Barbie dolls or a dead frog or something to see what makes living beings tick. The same thing with anyone working in law or the enforcement end of it.

So by definition a professional and/or careerist (and btw, anyone who thinks a blue collar police officer, fireman or even a corrections officer is NOT a careerist has never been involved in a household with one of them as a member of it) inevitably has a bad case of divided loyalty. In the past this wasn’t as big a problem, as the spouse who didn’t take on a career made up for this ‘divided loyalty’ of the careerist/professional spouse by spending the bulk of their time focused on the home and children, so that neither suffered from the divided loyalty of the careerist.

Generally this was a mother for the most obvious reason as she is the one who had already been chosen by God, evolution or nature to bring forth life. Thus she naturally had the most initially invested in the children. This spilled over into the ancillary interest in the home environment and everything connected with it.

Over time this ‘specialization’ by women made life pleasant for everybody, including the male professional/careerist. Since at least then when they did happen to be home (in between rescuing people from terrorists, carelessly started house fires and discovering the cure for cancer) they could relax in a pleasant clean house with a good home-cooked meal and well-adjusted kids around them.

Today the house is frequently a mess, if they want to eat they have to prepare it themselves or order take-out and the kids are generally being dumped off with total strangers for about 80% of their waking hours (with all the resulting problems associated with that situation) as their wife is now as deeply involved in her career as he, the husband, is with his.

So what was the point of the marriage????

As if most men wanted to have to work 10 hour days and then come home to cook and clean for themselves while a stranger is raising their kids, they could pay that stranger out of their own paycheck and cut out the middle-man entirely, namely the professional/careerist wife and mother.

So this article sums up the situation quite eloquently and has resultant research studies attached to back it up.

It’s nothing for ordinary women to get angry about, actually it can be used by us to plan our lives accordingly, particularly if we wish to marry and/or have children. If it cuts down on the divorce rate and millions of mothers losing custody of their children (which happens very frequently today) then it will be a good thing for women to know these things.

The only ones legitimately angry about these findings are gender-neutralized feminists and others like them (such as mens’ rights nuts) as the studies are another roadblock on the path to their ultimate goal of a totally androgynous society.

AND I could care LESS about what any of these gender-neutralized idiots think.



Don't Marry Career Women
Michael Noer 08.22.06, 6:00 AM ET

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations.

To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.

If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).


Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

posted by NYMOM | Saturday, August 26, 2006

Happy Bullet said...
I'm surprised to see you comment on this and even more that I ardently *agree* with everything you wrote on this piece.

It is the same opinion most MRA's seem to have of it. When MRA's say they will remain single, it is because of situations like that explained in this article so presumably would not remain so if the traditional roles were in place. BTW MRA's are not "gender neutral" right? I generally find that acknowledging differences is a good thing as long as those acknowledgements don't lead to privilege. For example, in cases of domestic violence legislation I *am* gender neutral, but in cases of marriage I am not...
5:09 AM

NYMOM said...
You cannot pick and chose which issues to be gender neutral about...you either accept the basic premise that we are all alike with NO essential differences between men and women, or you do NOT.

It's a basic misunderstanding about what gender neutral means to say you only support it for certain issues.

AND yes, I feel many of the leaders of the MRA movement are gender neutral just like many feminists are. Even all this focus on violence and aggression between men and women is an example of this. Any understanding of biology, history and just plain common sense would demonstrate that the male is the larger, stronger, and more aggressive of every species as well as our own.

So this focus on how women are just as aggressive as men, commit as many rapes as men, should be drafted since they are as strong as men, etc. plays into the gender neutralized feminist playbook...

So MRAs really need to think about these issues a little bit before deciding who legitimately speaks for you.

That's how mothers really got into the mess we're in today...by not delving deeper into the feminists philosophy before passively accepting them as spokesmen for women. They are not true advocates for all women, but advocates for a certain group of women. Probably the professional/careerist women who don't marry and/or have any kids like Maureen Dowd or Condi Rice. They are good advocates for them. Gender neutral feminism ensures that women cannot be discriminated against in the educational and professional fields they enter into...or in credit, mortgages, all that sort of stuff which really is gender neutral and should be...

But regarding children, marriage, family issues, gender neutralized feminists are not really good advocates for mothers or children. Quite simply, their refusal to accept the differences between men and women in the question of investment in children, for instance, opens them up to being used as pawns against mothers.
11:18 AM

Anonymous said...
Just wanting to point out that your comment about nature is a bit off the mark. In a very large number of animals the females are bigger, and in some, such as lions, the females do all the work, like hunting and bringing food for the pride.
2:19 PM

NYMOM said...
MOST males however are larger.


We cannot keep running to the edge of the bell-shaped curve and dragging back some rare bird or spider and then using that as an example to overturn what 99.9% of the rest of us conform with.


Female lionesses, like many females, hunt and provide food for the young. Male lions perform two functions, one sex to produce the next generation and the other keeping the only predators out of the pride's terroritory that could kill a lioness and her cubs: other male lions.

Something even human males oftentimes do...

So it's not true that male lions aren't useful, just like male humans they can be.
6:43 PM

Anonymous said...
do u even realize its not so simple today as women tending to kids and men earning and everyone living happily ever after? today money rules..the one who's earning tends to dictate the household's functioning..and im not talking about the general day2day life..im talking about how houseives have to depend for their spending money on their husbands, getting monitored, saving a little on the side for themselves..andf god forbid if the guy loses his job/turns out to be an alcoholic/has an affair somewhere cos his wife at home seems too boring for him, then what will this poor woman -- who willingly adopted the role of the 'mother hen' after getting in touch with her inner female tendencies like u suggested -- do? she will be forced to carry on, compromise with the situation, since she's so dependent on the DH that she cant go out in the world later and do anything on her own...so here she is, apparently trying to do what according to some of u "mother nature" intended her to do..and yet suffering...
guys, this is not NatGeo where we can go by what nature wanted us to do..its a human world..its complex, chaotic..and women have long suffered the brunt of being at home and wiping up everyone's shit and cleaning the house while the husband went outside and was made to feel imp...so plz dont talk such regressive stuff from the B.C. times now!!
3:42 AM

NYMOM said...
First of all, I have nothing against women who wish to focus on their careers. It's up to each individual how they live their lives.

What I have a problem with is when these same professional women then try to force their personal decisions and life-style choices onto the backs of every other woman on the planet.

That's my problem.

Our legal system and government is full of these women who have placed their careers first and their families second. Furthermore they have no problem passing public policies and laws that discriminate against women who chose to place their children first. This new Family Medical Leave Policy is a good example of this. It's nothing but an underhanded attempt to subvert mothers' maternity leave policy.

Probably professional women don't care as they are rushing back to work anyway a week or so after their baby is born. But many mothers do NOT wish to do that and replacing maternity leave with the gender neutral family leave is only something a gender neutralized feminist careerist would do...

I predict that we will see within two years or so after family leave is implemented custody fights BEFORE your child is even out of your womb...

That's where gender neutral female professionals are leading the rest of us.
11:34 AM