# Phyllis Schlafly RIP



## techmom

Oh well, the enemy of feminism is gone. My thoughts, good riddance to the woman who was proud to have not ever earned a dollar by earning a wage.
Good riddance to women who don't see the value of feminism, that to even voice their own thoughts as a woman, whatever they are, is indeed supported by feminism.

Good riddance to women who want to stay put in the era where women had no choice in the course of their lives...

I'm sure that the men who feel emasculated by feminism will shed many tears for this woman who embodied everything they wish all women will be.

RIP


----------



## EleGirl

Yea, I never could understand what was so bad about the equal rights amendment


----------



## techmom

Phyllis thought that equal rights meant that women will all be forced to earn their own living and she was proud to be a housewife, I have no issues with housewives. What she wanted was not what ALL women want, most women back then were tired of only having that one choice. They wanted careers and to pursue what they wanted without being burdened with a husband and kids.

The ERA gave this choice to women, we can be housewives or we can be career women and pursue the sciences and STEM fields. She, like most women who oppose feminism, thought that it was taking away her choice of lifestyle, but didn't realize that it was about giving women freedom to choose.


----------



## EleGirl

Back when the amendment was in play, my aunts and grandmother were going on and on about how terrible it was because it would mean that there could not be separate bathrooms for men and women. It was laughable.

There was my aunt who had to work most of her adult life at a clothing factory to support her daughter. But she could not see that her life would, her earning potential would be better with equal rights.


----------



## Thound

Why demonize a lady who doesn't share your ideology?


----------



## EleGirl

Thound said:


> Why demonize a lady who doesn't share your ideology?


There are plenty of people who do not share our ideology who have no problem demonizing those who believe that in the USA, all humans should have equal rights.

Sorry if you consider defending one's point of view is demonizing anyone.

Have you ever heard of free speech? Novel concept I guess.


----------



## Anon Pink

She sure was an odd bird. Women's place was in the home, she preached, while she toured the country promoting her books on feminine ideals. A woman who wished to silence the voice of women, and made her case via public speaking events and media interviews.
@Thound, tell you what. Lemme know how kind you would feel toward a man who felt all men can only be defined by their salary? Oh wait that Trump.... Never mind.


----------



## Thound

Anon Pink said:


> She sure was an odd bird. Women's place was in the home, she preached, while she toured the country promoting her books on feminine ideals. A woman who wished to silence the voice of women, and made her case via public speaking events and media interviews.
> 
> @Thound, tell you what. Lemme know how kind you would feel toward a man who felt all men can only be defined by their salary? Oh wait that Trump.... Never mind.


To each their own. Like I said, everybody has their own ideology.


----------



## Thound

EleGirl said:


> There are plenty of people who do not share our ideology who have no problem demonizing those who believe that in the USA, all humans should have equal rights.
> 
> Sorry if you consider defending one's point of view is demonizing anyone.
> 
> Have you ever heard of free speech? Novel concept I guess.


I guess I just have a problem with people saying good riddance about someone who died. While some may despise her, others loved her.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Anon Pink said:


> She sure was an odd bird. Women's place was in the home, she preached, while she toured the country promoting her books on feminine ideals. A woman who wished to silence the voice of women, and made her case via public speaking events and media interviews.


The irony :laugh:

She must have been very old. I remember her being one of People magazines "25 most fascinating people of the year" back in the early 80's. I was about 15 and she seemed ancient to me then. Obviously, I was a bit too young to fully understand what she was talking about.

I can understand women being threatened, or unnerved by the thought of being a combat soldier. I think some women who admitted they would be crummy soldiers, didn't want the ERA to get passed, because if it did, then female conscription/front line fighting could become a reality.

Not that guys are eager to get drafted and fight in wars either though.


I wonder if there is a current version of Phyllis Schlafly?? Can't think of one.


----------



## Ynot

I don't know about her being the enemy of feminism. She was actually quite the feminist herself. Rather than sitting around waiting for the government to makes things equal. She set out and made a life of her own. She went to college, got a degree, became a lawyer and ran for office all during a time when women were expected to be little more than home makers. Her opposition to the ERA stemmed more from her desire to not lose the privileges and protections that already existed for her as a woman than her desire to see women kept in their places. 
More modern versions of her might include people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, who similarly attempt to appeal to traditionalists while making a place for themselves in the world.
I guess the real rub is determined by what privileges one expects. In my mind modern day feminism, much like modern day civil rights have gone beyond advocating for equality into the realm of advocating for special and extra special rights for themselves.


----------



## lifeistooshort

There was a phony hypocrite element to her. I find it a little ironic that those who dislike modern feminism point to a desire for special privileges, because that's exactly what she wanted.

She apparently thought that she should be able to go to school, tour for her book signings, do whatever she wanted and have her hb be obligated to support her.

So she wanted all of the privileges of equal opportunity but none of the responsibility of equal rights. 

Is that really what you guys want? To be expected to shoulder all of the responsibility while your wife is free from all responsibility and able to pursue what she wants at your expense? Isn't that the gripe about so called feminism?

I say so called because anyone can call themselves a feminist and spout whatever they want.....doesn't make it actually feminism.

That sounds like what she was advocating. Opportunity but no responsibility. Sounds like a sweet deal to me. 

And somehow I bet Ms. Schafly's hb didn't get enthusiastic porn sex, but that's another topic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blondilocks

The hypocrisy surrounding her was what made my generation of women want to yell "Shut up and sit down".


----------



## Dallow Spicer

I always thought she was a sad figure, a champion for parochial thinking.


----------



## ButtPunch

I don't know who this lady is and really don't care but in her defense

40 years ago women were less liberated but a lot happier than they are today.

The actual male to female happiness gap continues to get larger. 

Quite the paradox.


----------



## Blondilocks

ButtPunch said:


> I don't know who this lady is and really don't care but in her defense
> 
> 40 years ago women were less liberated but a lot happier than they are today.
> 
> The actual male to female happiness gap continues to get larger.
> 
> Quite the paradox.


Are you saying you were a lot happier 40 years ago?


----------



## ButtPunch

Blondilocks said:


> Are you saying you were a lot happier 40 years ago?


No studies show that men are getting happier and that women are becoming less happy.

In general, women as a whole are much less happy than they were 40 years ago and the opposite is
occurring in men.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> No studies show that men are getting happier and that women are becoming less happy.
> 
> In general, women as a whole are much less happy than they were 40 years ago and the opposite is
> occurring in men.


Could you cite the studies, please?


----------



## lifeistooshort

jld said:


> Could you cite the studies, please?


Yes, I'd like to see those too.

If men are so much happier why is TAM constantly complaining about how bad men have it and how poorly they're treated?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

lifeistooshort said:


> Yes, I'd like to see those too.
> 
> If men are so much happier why is TAM constantly complaining about how bad men have it and how poorly they're treated?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Probably because women are blaming their husbands for their unhappiness.

One reason TAM is riddled with men is because women usually have strong social networks where men do not.

Men cannot complain about their divorce to their men friends because they get told to quit whining. We aren't a sensitive bunch.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Could you cite the studies, please?


Google this

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness


----------



## lifeistooshort

ButtPunch said:


> Probably because women are blaming their husbands for their unhappiness.
> 
> One reason TAM is riddled with men is because women usually have strong social networks where men do not.
> 
> Men cannot complain about their divorce to their men friends because they get told to quit whining. We aren't a sensitive bunch.


Well unhappy spouses often blame their spouse. Unhappy married men also blame their wife.

But it's true that men lack social networks.

We just hear a lot about how society doesn't value men. So how is it that men are so happy with society not valuing them and treating them poorly? That kind of thing has nothing to do with their wife.

I'd appreciate seeing these studies, since working work data and statistics is what I do every day.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

I googled "women not as happy as 40 years ago" and actually got many hits. Here is one, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap


----------



## Blondilocks

It is difficult to imagine how a study could be set up to determine the happiness quotient of one generation versus another generation. It would have to be anecdotal about a subjective matter and that wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

As usual, a superficial reading of a study isn't that helpful. 

The happiness number doesn't come from asking people if they're happy. It comes from the ratio of time spent doing tasks you like doing to tasks you don't like doing. So if you like cleaning house all day and don't like visiting your in laws that gives you a number and if its the reverse it gives you another number and they call it "Happiness". 

Could this also be true? Women of 40 years ago had fewer expectations and ambitions (in general) and therefore found it easier to achieve their goals which leads to satisfaction which leads to happiness. Now women have greater expectations which are accompanied by greater challenges and difficulty, hence less happiness. 

So statistically women are "less happy" now but would they want to actually live in the world of 1976? I doubt it.


----------



## Evinrude58

EleGirl said:


> There are plenty of people who do not share our ideology who have no problem demonizing those who believe that in the USA, all humans should have equal rights.
> 
> Sorry if you consider defending one's point of view is demonizing anyone.
> 
> Have you ever heard of free speech? Novel concept I guess.


I'm a-thinkin' that saying "good riddance" to someone who died that had a different ideology is a little rough.

I'm also thinking that women having the opportunity to stay home and the man having enough salary to take care of a family is a great thing. Not for all women, of course, but for those who want to. That resulted in the kids getting better parenting, having better manners, better work ethic, etc. Kids had a family to come home to and usually lived close to their parents in the "good old days" that some of you ladies hate so much that didn't even live through. Now, kids move off to find jobs, both parents have to work to earn a living, etc. etc. One doesn't even usually get to enjoy their kids as adults because they have to move away for work.

I personally am totally disgusted with all the feminism movement from women that don't really want equal rights. They want everything for THEM. Divorce laws to favor WOMEN, labor laws to give them equal pay for UNEQUAL work, etc. etc.
I'm all for equal pay for the same work, but if it's not the same, one shouldn't have to pay them the same because some feminist cries foul.

So yeah, feminism sucks. I'll be glad when men grow a spine again and stop putting up with women running things to their benefit out of fear they'll be called a chauvinist.


----------



## ButtPunch

lifeistooshort said:


> Well unhappy spouses often blame their spouse. Unhappy married men also blame their wife.
> 
> But it's true that men lack social networks.
> 
> We just hear a lot about how society doesn't value men. So how is it that men are so happy with society not valuing them and treating them poorly? That kind of thing has nothing to do with their wife.
> 
> I'd appreciate seeing these studies, since working work data and statistics is what I do every day.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think it personally boils down to work sucks and men are working less than they used to and women are working more.


----------



## Blondilocks

The article in The Guardian concerns women self-reporting. Who complains? People who are unhappy. In other words, women who were happy didn't participate in the survey. If there were different parameters, they were not stated.


----------



## jld

Blondilocks said:


> The article in The Guardian concerns women self-reporting. Who complains? People who are unhappy. In other words, women who were happy didn't participate in the survey. If there were different parameters, they were not stated.


Blondi, you are in your 60s, no? Would you say that women seemed happier in the 70s, or would you completely disagree with that?


----------



## notmyrealname4

Staying home and having kids is a fantastic life path. Many advantages to it for everyone in the family; and dare I say society as a whole.

*IF* a women is married to a man who is a good guy.

She is vulnerable if she cannot work, and has children.

If her husband ends up being a stinker; cheats on her, not much of a worker, is a drunk, abuses her-----then she's stuck. What a life.

And you can't always tell when you _get_ married, how it's going to roll later on in the marriage.

Most women who work don't have exciting careers. They have a mundane job.

I can't see how staying at home is less exciting than that.

But jobs pay money. And money is god.


----------



## jld

notmyrealname4 said:


> Staying home and having kids is a fantastic life path. Many advantages to it for everyone in the family; and dare I say society as a whole.
> 
> **IF* a women is married to a man who is a good guy.*
> 
> She is vulnerable if she cannot work, and has children.
> 
> If her husband ends up being a stinker; cheats on her, not much of a worker, is a drunk, abuses her-----then she's stuck. What a life.
> 
> And you can't always tell when you _get_ married, how it's going to roll later on in the marriage.
> 
> Most women who work don't have exciting careers. They have a mundane job.
> 
> I can't see how staying at home is less exciting than that.
> 
> But jobs pay money. And money is god.


I don't think the bolded can be emphasized enough. It is critical for a sahm to be married to a man who is beyond reproach in trustworthiness, character, integrity, work ethic, etc. She is putting her life in his hands.

And even a woman who marries very wisely is still subject to life's unexpected storms.


----------



## ButtPunch

I can say without a doubt I am happier today than I would be 40 years ago.

My wife working gave me the courage to take a financial risk of starting my own engineering company.

If she had been a sahm, no way I take that financial risk. So i would be in a cubicle pounding away
60 hours a week like most other engineers or out there travelling across the states peddling whatever product while my kids are getting tucked in bed without me.

Instead I work like 30-35, make more money, and spend the other time coaching my kids sports.

I LOVE IT! and I would personally like to thank feminism for it.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I can say without a doubt I am happier today than I would be 40 years ago.
> 
> My wife working gave me the courage to take a financial risk of starting my own engineering company.
> 
> If she had been a sahm, no way I take that financial risk. So i would be in a cubicle pounding away
> 60 hours a week like most other engineers out there travelling across the states peddling whatever product while my kids are getting tucked in bed without me.
> 
> Instead I work like 30-35, make more money, and spend the other time coaching my kids sports.
> 
> I LOVE IT! and I would personally like to thank feminism for it.


But she is still working, right? Does she want to?


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> But she is still working, right? Does she want to?


 I think she committed to working when she borrowed $125,000.00 to go to school.

She does want to work. I think going back to work lifted a huge weight off her shoulders.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I think she committed to working when she borrowed $125,000.00 to go to school.


But you are making a lot of money, right? Enough to pay that off for her in gratitude for her support and encouragement for you to start your own business, which has allowed you to only work 30-35 hours, have plenty of free time to pursue your interests, and still make a good living?



> She does want to work. I think going back to work lifted a huge weight off her shoulders.


She seemed really stressed in a thread a few months ago, talking about potentially losing her old job and finding a new one.

If she is happy, good enough. I just hope she is truly happy, and enjoying the fruits of both your labors as much as you yourself are.


----------



## Blondilocks

jld said:


> Blondi, you are in your 60s, no? Would you say that women seemed happier in the 70s, or would you completely disagree with that?


Yes, I am in my 60s. I would disagree that women seemed happier in the 70s. 

Women had few recourses to escape an unhappy marriage. The police did not protect women from their abusive husbands. Fewer career opportunities as employers did not want to invest in females due to expecting them to get pregnant and stop working. Banks didn't want to offer women credit cards without their husbands signing for them. I can go on and on but you get the drift. The patronizing was rampant and suffocating. The sexual harassment in the workplace was untenable.


----------



## Ynot

lifeistooshort said:


> There was a phony hypocrite element to her. I find it a little ironic that those who dislike modern feminism point to a desire for special privileges, because that's exactly what she wanted.
> 
> She apparently thought that she should be able to go to school, tour for her book signings, do whatever she wanted and have her hb be obligated to support her.
> 
> So she wanted all of the privileges of equal opportunity but none of the responsibility of equal rights.
> 
> Is that really what you guys want? To be expected to shoulder all of the responsibility while your wife is free from all responsibility and able to pursue what she wants at your expense? Isn't that the gripe about so called feminism?
> 
> I say so called because anyone can call themselves a feminist and spout whatever they want.....doesn't make it actually feminism.
> 
> That sounds like what she was advocating. Opportunity but no responsibility. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.
> 
> And somehow I bet Ms. Schafly's hb didn't get enthusiastic porn sex, but that's another topic.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As opposed to expecting a slot in a university program or a job at some corporation over some otherwise qualified individual on the basis of one simple fact - that she is a woman?
Personally I have no problem with anybody - male or female making the most of their life and doing the best for themselves. But making special allowances for anybody is wrong. The men of previous generations were just as wrong as many women of today in seeking special privilege for them selves at the expense of others.
Opportunity with no responsibility could be applied to modern feminism as well. At the very least Schlafly did sit on her butt complaining about lack of opportunity. She found it where it was and took advantage of it, which is an example that many women (not mention minorities) would be far better off to emulate than petitioning the government to make things "fair"
In the end, the person most hurt by discrimination is the one who discriminates.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Ynot said:


> As opposed to expecting a slot in a university program or a job at some corporation over some otherwise qualified individual on the basis of one simple fact - that she is a woman?
> Personally I have no problem with anybody - male or female making the most of their life and doing the best for themselves. But making special allowances for anybody is wrong. The men of previous generations were just as wrong as many women of today in seeking special privilege for them selves at the expense of others.
> Opportunity with no responsibility could be applied to modern feminism as well. At the very least Schlafly did sit on her butt complaining about lack of opportunity. She found it where it was and took advantage of it, which is an example that many women (not mention minorities) would be far better off to emulate than petitioning the government to make things "fair"
> In the end, the person most hurt by discrimination is the one who discriminates.


Um, who exactly petitions the govt to get privilege ?

I got into college because my grades and ACT scores were very good, and I am quite qualified for my job. 

If by petitioning the govt you mean having discrimination barred.....well you have to do that in a society that is more inclined to give men opportunity. More inclined to think men are qualified and need to job to support a family, while for women it was a hobby. That used to be the case. 

Even my own father once tried to tell me that men need jobs more because THEY have families to support.

The problem is that the recipients of privilege think it unfair when said privilege shrinks, and it seems like special consideration is now being given to others, when it's really trying to correct societal biases.

Minorities face the same issue. For sure all considered candidates should be qualified for the job but you're assuming that all job qualifications being equal all candidates are given equal consideration. That is simply not the case. 

I think women face this issue a little less than minorities do these days, but it's still a work in progress.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I googled "women not as happy as 40 years ago" and actually got many hits. Here is one, from the Guardian:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap


Here is an interesting site. It's basically saying that the difference between male/female "happiness" was so small in that study that it's statistically insignificant. Apparently the guys who did that study simply milked it to sell their book.


----------



## EleGirl

Evinrude58 said:


> I'm a-thinkin' that saying "good riddance" to someone who died that had a different ideology is a little rough.


I did not way "good riddance" to anyone. So if you have a problem with that being said, take it up with the person who said that.



Evinrude58 said:


> I'm also thinking that women having the opportunity to stay home and the man having enough salary to take care of a family is a great thing. Not for all women, of course, but for those who want to. That resulted in the kids getting better parenting, having better manners, better work ethic, etc. Kids had a family to come home to and usually lived close to their parents in the "good old days" that some of you ladies hate so much that didn't even live through. Now, kids move off to find jobs, both parents have to work to earn a living, etc. etc. One doesn't even usually get to enjoy their kids as adults because they have to move away for work.


Today, every couple has the choice to structure their family where the wife is a SAHM and the husband is the sole support of the family. No one is forcing anyone to not live like this… that’s as long as there is a man who will support the woman and the kids, not everyone is lucky enough to have everything go right in their lives to enable this kind of lifestyle.

This assumes that all women had the same life. That has never been the case.

There have always been women whose husbands walked out on them, or died, or were disabled, or who just refused to support her and their children. For many woman, having to earn an income is not a choice. It’s a necessity.

I have an aunt whose husband went insane in the 1940’s. She had to work her entire adult life to support her daughter. But as a woman, she could never earn as much as the men working in the very same factory doing the exact same work.

I’ve never had the luxury of a man supporting me because I married men who would not do that. I had no clue before marriage that this is the path it would take. I never had the luxury of being a SAHM. My experience was different than my aunt’s experience because I was able to get into a career field that paid well. Unfortunately for me, when I first started out, women were paid about 50% of what men doing the exact same job were paid. So it was years before I got anything near equal pay or equal work.

I raised my son little help from his father. He’s fine young man, has good manners, strong morals, has two BS degrees in applied mathematics and physics, has an MS in physics and is working on his PHD now. And that’s with me working his entire life. If kids turn out to be brats… they would still be brats even if the mother did not work.

The old model of women being a SAHM/W taking care of by her husband only worked for one set of people. It did not work at all for any woman who had a different life circumstance.


Evinrude58 said:


> I personally am totally disgusted with all the feminism movement from women that don't really want equal rights. They want everything for THEM. Divorce laws to favor WOMEN, labor laws to give them equal pay for UNEQUAL work, etc. etc.


Feminism is a huge tent. There is no one person or group that is feminism. Sure there might be some nutty women (and men) who think that women should get special privileges. There are also men (and some women) who think that men should get special privileges. You know like the men who paid me 50% what they paid men for the exact same work. Their reasoning was that I was a woman so of course I would not be paid equally. What made me think that a woman should be paid equally. 

The reason that alimony exists at all is that before modern divorce laws, men could get a divorce and throw their wife out on the street with nothing. NO matter how many years she put into taking care of him, the kids and the home, women were disposable. The man kept everything, to include any inheritance and assets that she brought into the marriage. That was profoundly unfair. But we did not see men back then complaining at all about this, did we?

It is because of feminism that divorce laws are now gender neutral, feminists fought for that. It is because of feminism that men today pay alimony in only about 15% of divorces, it’s almost always rehabilitative and $300 a month on average.



Evinrude58 said:


> I'm all for equal pay for the same work, but if it's not the same, one shouldn't have to pay them the same because some feminist cries foul.


I agree, there should be equal pay for equal work. The deal is determining what is equal work. Unfortunately, an update to the Equal Pay laws was not passed a couple of years ago. The update would have given companies stronger methods for defining business cases for unequal pay. And note that the law was gender neutral. But those who oppose equal pay of any kind fought it.



Evinrude58 said:


> So yeah, feminism sucks. I'll be glad when men grow a spine again and stop putting up with women running things to their benefit out of fear they'll be called a chauvinist.


I’m sorry that you think it sucks that I was able to get a college degree, work as an engineer, eventually earn about what men earned and was able to support my son. I guess you would have been happier if the only job I could get was minimum wage as a secretary. Because obviously my very existence harmed men.


----------



## KillerClown

I never understand why all icons are freaks. 

I know a lot of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc. and they're all reasonable people. So why are the icons who supposedly represent them so laughably absurd? It's as if Hollywood had an open casting for a low budget satire movie and let them loose in the world in full costume.


----------



## EleGirl

notmyrealname4 said:


> The irony :laugh:
> 
> She must have been very old. I remember her being one of People magazines "25 most fascinating people of the year" back in the early 80's. I was about 15 and she seemed ancient to me then. Obviously, I was a bit too young to fully understand what she was talking about.
> 
> I can understand women being threatened, or unnerved by the thought of being a combat soldier. I think some women who admitted they would be crummy soldiers, didn't want the ERA to get passed, because if it did, then female conscription/front line fighting could become a reality.
> 
> Not that guys are eager to get drafted and fight in wars either though.


No, women would not get conscripted for combat on the front line. That is a straw man argument. In order to be in combat, a person has to be able to pass physical tests of strength and endurance. The vast majority of women cannot pass those tests. Most jobs in the military are not combat jobs and can be done by either men or women. Women drive vehicles, we can use (and ever design/write) computerized combat system, fly fixed and rotary air craft, work in offices, be medics, doctors, JAG officers, and do an endless number of non-combat jobs.

It is not discrimination to only allow those who can pass physical tests to get into combat roles. 

The combat issue was just used as a way to scare people to not support the amendment.


----------



## Ynot

lifeistooshort said:


> Um, who exactly petitions the govt to get privilege ?
> NOW for one
> I got into college because my grades and ACT scores were very good, and I am quite qualified for my job.
> All that despite oppresive men?
> If by petitioning the govt you mean having discrimination barred.....well you have to do that in a society that is more inclined to give men opportunity. More inclined to think men are qualified and need to job to support a family, while for women it was a hobby. That used to be the case.
> You can't legislate behavior
> Even my own father once tried to tell me that men need jobs more because THEY have families to support.
> I am sorry you had such a retrograde backwards thinking neandrathal for a dad. but that isn't every man
> The problem is that the recipients of privilege think it unfair when said privilege shrinks, and it seems like special consideration is now being given to others, when it's really trying to correct societal biases.
> Such as when NOW seeks set asides and equal funding for programs that can't fund themselves?
> Minorities face the same issue. For sure all considered candidates should be qualified for the job but you're assuming that all job qualifications being equal all candidates are given equal consideration. That is simply not the case.
> No one ever said it was. But it is a fools errand to think it ever will be. Laws don't stop discrimination, they simply force it to morph into other forms
> I think women face this issue a little less than minorities do these days, but it's still a work in progress.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What is a work in progress? Attempting to legislate something that can't be regulated? IMO, people who define themselves as victims become victims. Those who look for discrimination find it everywhere they look.


----------



## Ynot

EleGirl said:


> I’m sorry that you think it sucks that I was able to get a college degree, work as an engineer, eventually earn about what men earned and was able to support my son. I guess you would have been happier if the only job I could get was minimum wage as a secretary. Because obviously my very existence harmed men.


Wow, so now we know who feminism is. I don't believe the poster ever said YOU suck. But just in case YOU missed it - look at what YOU accomplished. Maybe you should take a little pride in your achievements and stop denigrating them by ascribing your success to feminists.


----------



## EleGirl

ButtPunch said:


> I can say without a doubt I am happier today than I would be 40 years ago.
> 
> My wife working gave me the courage to take a financial risk of starting my own engineering company.
> 
> If she had been a sahm, no way I take that financial risk. So i would be in a cubicle pounding away
> 60 hours a week like most other engineers or out there travelling across the states peddling whatever product while my kids are getting tucked in bed without me.
> 
> Instead I work like 30-35, make more money, and spend the other time coaching my kids sports.
> 
> I LOVE IT! and I would personally like to thank feminism for it.


And see... as a woman I like this. I like that you are able to be more a part of your children's life. I like that you have been able to start your own company. When things are done right, everyone benefits.


----------



## WorkingWife

Thound said:


> I guess I just have a problem with people saying good riddance about someone who died. While some may despise her, others loved her.


I notice this too. Maybe I am wrong but it seems like it is almost always only when a _*conservative*_ is very sick or passes that we get these unnecessary, non-self-censured, nasty tributes/eulogies.

Andrew Breitbart
Justice Scalia
Phyllis Schlafy
Margaret Thatcher
Ronald Reagan
Nancy Reagan
etc...

For all the above mentioned, I saw celebratory posts all over the place from liberal friends on my FB feed, Twitter, in here, etc.

Like the need to celebrate the misfortune of those with whom they don't agree is a compulsion for them.

I am pretty conservative and thought Ted Kennedy was a destructive force in this country. But I wasn't HAPPY or CELEBRATORY when he had a brain tumor. I just thought how horrible for him and his family. And I don't recall ANY of my conservative friends making cracks about it either. Or when Joe Biden lost his son. So horrible to think about. I heard many of my conservative friends who don't like Biden at ALL saying somber things of condolences, not snide little comments about him at that time.

Liberals even wished death on Barbara Bush when she was hospitalized. 

I really don't understand it.

Sure, we all have "free speech" and I'll exercise my free speech to say how incredibly unbecoming people are when they act like that.

As for Schlafly, I did not follow her closely, but when I did read her opinions, some struck me as obtuse but more were well based and insightful. I think she had a fascinating mind and was actually quite deep in her thoughts and very egalitarian. Also, much of what concerned her about the feminist movement has come to pass. So agree with her view or not, she was prescient. And I do hope she rests in peace.


----------



## Dallow Spicer

Oh, not all liberals celebrate the death of all conservatives...


----------



## lifeistooshort

Ynot said:


> What is a work in progress? Attempting to legislate something that can't be regulated? IMO, people who define themselves as victims become victims. Those who look for discrimination find it everywhere they look.


Please do not insult my father again.

If you are half the man he was you're doing well.

The fact that you even made such a comment says a lot about you. 

I have nothing more to say to this nasty, ignorant statement.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Ynot said:


> Wow, so now we know who feminism is. I don't believe the poster ever said YOU suck.


I did not say that anyone said that I suck. You need to re-read what I wrote.



Ynot said:


> But just in case YOU missed it - look at what YOU accomplished. Maybe you should take a little pride in your achievements and stop denigrating them by ascribing your success to feminists.


Yes, I accomplished a lot. But it was only possible because of feminism. It was only possible because there were women and men, other than myself fighting to open up opportunities for me and other women.

Sure, I did the work to get the degrees. I did the work on the job. But I was only able to get the degrees and the job because feminists fought to open up education and industry to women.

In 1970, most women who had law degrees could only get jobs as legal secretaries. Most women with degrees in engineering could only get jobs as technicians. 

In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when I tried to get into the engineering classes I was told that women cannot take those classes, that no one would even hire a female engineer. It was not until 1982 that I was able to get into the classes that I need for the degree that I wanted.

When I started working as an engineer, I was often the only female in the meetings. The male engineers would hand me papers to copy and order me to make them coffee, got get them donuts, etc. I had to find a way to end that without paying the 'how dare you' card. 

I won't even get into how many times I was told by men I worked with that I needed to keep in my place (meaning they felt that they deserved the promotion, the credit, etc because they were men).

In 1993, as I recall, I brought up to my boss that I had found out that the men doing the exact same job I was doing made twice as much as I did. He responded with the lecture about how I should be home, barefoot and pregnant. That it was bunch of crap for women to work as engineers. This is a guy who was 36 at time, not some old codger.. .just a jack ass who was like a lot of the other men I worked with.

It was not until about 1998, after I got a job at a fortune 50 engineering firm, that my pay started to be close to what the men earned. The company has a 'high talent' list. These were the men who they were grooming for management positions. In 2005 there was not one woman on the list. There never had been any women on the list. It was only after someone in HR exposed the list in 2005 that management added some women to the list.

Today, my retirement is significantly lower than that of the men I worked with. The men who did the same jobs that I did. It's lower because I earned less for the same work. So I was not able to accumulate as much for retirement. While I was able to accomplish what I did because of both my hard work and the feminists fighting to get society to change, I have been significantly harmed by things like unequal pay in much of my career.


----------



## Ynot

EleGirl said:


> I did not say that anyone said that I suck. You need to re-read what I wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I accomplished a lot. But it was only possible because of feminism. It was only possible because there were women and men, other than myself fighting to open up opportunities for me and other women.
> 
> Sure, I did the work to get the degrees. I did the work on the job. But I was only able to get the degrees and the job because feminists fought to open up education and industry to women.
> 
> In 1970, most women who had law degrees could only get jobs as legal secretaries. Most women with degrees in engineering could only get jobs as technicians.
> 
> In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when I tried to get into the engineering classes I was told that women cannot take those classes, that no one would even hire a female engineer. It was not until 1982 that I was able to get into the classes that I need for the degree that I wanted.
> 
> When I started working as an engineer, I was often the only female in the meetings. The male engineers would hand me papers to copy and order me to make them coffee, got get them donuts, etc. I had to find a way to end that without paying the 'how dare you' card.
> 
> I won't even get into how many times I was told by men I worked with that I needed to keep in my place (meaning they felt that they deserved the promotion, the credit, etc because they were men).
> 
> In 1993, as I recall, I brought up to my boss that I had found out that the men doing the exact same job I was doing made twice as much as I did. He responded with the lecture about how I should be home, barefoot and pregnant. That it was bunch of crap for women to work as engineers. This is a guy who was 36 at time, not some old codger.. .just a jack ass who was like a lot of the other men I worked with.
> 
> It was not until about 1998, after I got a job at a fortune 50 engineering firm, that my pay started to be close to what the men earned. The company has a 'high talent' list. These were the men who they were grooming for management positions. In 2005 there was not one woman on the list. There never had been any women on the list. It was only after someone in HR exposed the list in 2005 that management added some women to the list.
> 
> Today, my retirement is significantly lower than that of the men I worked with. The men who did the same jobs that I did. It's lower because I earned less for the same work. So I was not able to accumulate as much for retirement. While I was able to accomplish what I did because of both my hard work and the feminists fighting to get society to change, I have been significantly harmed by things like unequal pay in much of my career.


Ok I feel sorry for you, that you allowed yourself to be treated this way for so long. Did it ever occur to you to take your skills elsewhere? You accomplished what you accomplished because the times they were a changing. But now the pendulum of change has swung way too far past the nadir of the swing. Feminism today is much like the civil rights movement. What once was a fight for a good cause is now a mockery of its former self.


----------



## Ynot

lifeistooshort said:


> Please do not insult my father again.
> 
> If you are half the man he was you're doing well.
> 
> The fact that you even made such a comment says a lot about you.
> 
> I have nothing more to say to this nasty, ignorant statement.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Um, you were the one who insulted the man for what he said. If you can't get past your own ideology perhaps it is best for you to keep your ignorance to yourself. Have a nice day, don't let all those evil men get you down. You go girl!


----------



## Evinrude58

EleGirl said:


> I did not way "good riddance" to anyone. So if you have a problem with that being said, take it up with the person who said that.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post
> There are plenty of people who do not share our ideology who have no problem demonizing those who believe that in the USA, all humans should have equal rights.
> 
> Sorry if you consider defending one's point of view is demonizing anyone.
> 
> Have you ever heard of free speech? Novel concept I guess.
> 
> 
> The OP said she felt that it was "good riddance" for this person to be dead. You were defending the OP's right to her "point of view". I felt that the OP wishing this person dead was the person that was doing the "demonizing".
> 
> Today, every couple has the choice to structure their family where the wife is a SAHM and the husband is the sole support of the family. No one is forcing anyone to not live like this… that’s as long as there is a man who will support the woman and the kids, not everyone is lucky enough to have everything go right in their lives to enable this kind of lifestyle.
> 
> This assumes that all women had the same life. That has never been the case.
> 
> There have always been women whose husbands walked out on them, or died, or were disabled, or who just refused to support her and their children. For many woman, having to earn an income is not a choice. It’s a necessity.
> 
> I have an aunt whose husband went insane in the 1940’s. She had to work her entire adult life to support her daughter. But as a woman, she could never earn as much as the men working in the very same factory doing the exact same work.
> 
> I’ve never had the luxury of a man supporting me because I married men who would not do that. I had no clue before marriage that this is the path it would take. I never had the luxury of being a SAHM. My experience was different than my aunt’s experience because I was able to get into a career field that paid well. Unfortunately for me, when I first started out, women were paid about 50% of what men doing the exact same job were paid. So it was years before I got anything near equal pay or equal work.
> 
> I raised my son little help from his father. He’s fine young man, has good manners, strong morals, has two BS degrees in applied mathematics and physics, has an MS in physics and is working on his PHD now. And that’s with me working his entire life. If kids turn out to be brats… they would still be brats even if the mother did not work.
> 
> So your theory is that having a mother home during the first 5 years of life for a child where their personality is just forming makes no difference???? That having a mom instead of a daycare worker is of no benefit on average??? Really????????? From my experience, I would agree that a parent doing their job as a parent when they do get home from work has a huge impact, but I believe there is a huge impact from leaving kids with daycare workers who may or may not be interested in that child's mental and social development. I guess we have different opinions--- I think having a mom at home during formative years is AWESOME for helping a child develop into a well-rounded person.
> 
> The old model of women being a SAHM/W taking care of by her husband only worked for one set of people. It did not work at all for any woman who had a different life circumstance.
> 
> Feminism is a huge tent. There is no one person or group that is feminism. Sure there might be some nutty women (and men) who think that women should get special privileges. There are also men (and some women) who think that men should get special privileges. You know like the men who paid me 50% what they paid men for the exact same work. Their reasoning was that I was a woman so of course I would not be paid equally. What made me think that a woman should be paid equally.
> 
> The reason that alimony exists at all is that before modern divorce laws, men could get a divorce and throw their wife out on the street with nothing. NO matter how many years she put into taking care of him, the kids and the home, women were disposable. The man kept everything, to include any inheritance and assets that she brought into the marriage. That was profoundly unfair. But we did not see men back then complaining at all about this, did we?
> 
> Apparently there were men complaining about this, because the laws have changed, have they not????? Perfect example of how some women think that they did it all by themselves..... A MAN never helped them. Back to reality, men are the predominant elected officials, and men represent about 1/2 the voting populace. WOMEN NEED MEN to get laws passed that help women--- now and in the past......
> 
> It is because of feminism that divorce laws are now gender neutral, feminists fought for that. It is because of feminism that men today pay alimony in only about 15% of divorces, it’s almost always rehabilitative and $300 a month on average.
> 
> This is laughable. Everyone knows how slanted the courts are to women in divorces. A woman is almost guaranteed to get cash and prizes in a divorce. I'm just thankful that all those child support payments which feminist women receive from oppressive men, get spent totally on the children.
> 
> 
> I agree, there should be equal pay for equal work. The deal is determining what is equal work. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! Unfortunately, an update to the Equal Pay laws was not passed a couple of years ago. The update would have given companies stronger methods for defining business cases for unequal pay. And note that the law was gender neutral. But those who oppose equal pay of any kind fought it.
> 
> 
> I’m sorry that you think it sucks that I was able to get a college degree, work as an engineer, eventually earn about what men earned and was able to support my son. I guess you would have been happier if the only job I could get was minimum wage as a secretary. Because obviously my very existence harmed men.


That last quote in red----- I don't know what to say about that. Talking about putting words in a person's mouth!!!! I'm happy for all people to get paid fairly and have equal access to jobs, regardless of sex, race, etc. Happy that you made it through the oppressive society we men have heaped upon you all these years......

Feminism..... Bleh....


----------



## EleGirl

Ynot said:


> Ok I feel sorry for you, that you allowed yourself to be treated this way for so long.


You don’t get it. I was not allowing myself to be treated that way. That’s the way it was for women in every industry. Women had to stand up to that kind of treatment over and over for years. Today, younger women don’t have these things happening. It’s because women before them fought this nonsense and even got laws passed to make it illegal to discriminate.



Ynot said:


> Did it ever occur to you to take your skills elsewhere?


Take them where? To the top 8 accounting firms where the male managers routinely threw away the resumes of women CPAs so that could just say that they were not hiring women because no women applied? Or how about as a mechanical engineer where female engineers were told to teach male technicians how to do the engineering work because the male technicians refused to work for female engineering leads and managers? 



Ynot said:


> You accomplished what you accomplished because the times they were a changing.


That’s right, if times were not changing, I could not have even gotten the degrees, much less the jobs.



Ynot said:


> But now the pendulum of change has swung way too far past the nadir of the swing. Feminism today is much like the civil rights movement. What once was a fight for a good cause is now a mockery of its former self.


Yes, the MRA wants to roll back the clock and put women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. And this is the strawman argument that they use. There is no law out there that gives women or minorities any more rights than white men have.


----------



## Evinrude58

EleGirl said:


> You don’t get it. I was not allowing myself to be treated that way. That’s the way it was for women in every industry. Women had to stand up to that kind of treatment over and over for years. Today, younger women don’t have these things happening. It’s because women before them fought this nonsense and even got laws passed to make it illegal to discriminate.
> 
> 
> 
> Take them where? To the top 8 accounting firms where the male managers routinely threw away the resumes of women CPAs so that could just say that they were not hiring women because no women applied? Or how about as a mechanical engineer where female engineers were told to teach male technicians how to do the engineering work because the male technicians refused to work for female engineering leads and managers?
> 
> 
> 
> That’s right, if times were not changing, I could not have even gotten the degrees, much less the jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the MRA wants to roll back the clock and put women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. And this is the strawman argument that they use. There is no law out there that gives women or minorities any more rights than white men have.


Untrue, lots of reverse discrimination laws that do just that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Evinrude58 said:


> So your theory is that having a mother home during the first 5 years of life for a child where their personality is just forming makes no difference????


Nowhere did I say the above. What I did say is that not every woman is lucky enough to have someone who will support her and her children. A lot of women have no choice but to work because they have a husband/SO who either: splits, is disabled, dies, refuses to support the family (I’m sure that there are other circumstances, but those are the one I can think of right now.) Those women have no choice but to work. And those women can still set up their lives in a way that allows them to work, provides good care for their child and when they are not at work, raise their child to be a good, productive member of society. 

That beats the hell out of the old fashion way were a woman in those circumstances could only get the lowest paid job, there was no childcare so the children ran the street. And everyone lived in abject poverty. At least today, a good number of women in those circumstances can support their kids and raise them right.

On the topic of whether or not a SAHM is better for children than a working mom. Well, in the best of circumstances, sure a SAHM is good for kids. But not all SAHMs are good for kids. I know a fair number of children who would be better off in childcare than in the daily care of the bat sh!t crazy mother.


Evinrude58 said:


> That having a mom instead of a daycare worker is of no benefit on average??? Really????????? From my experience, I would agree that a parent doing their job as a parent when they do get home from work has a huge impact, but I believe there is a huge impact from leaving kids with daycare workers who may or may not be interested in that child's mental and social development. I guess we have different opinions--- I think having a mom at home during formative years is AWESOME for helping a child develop into a well-rounded person.


Sure it’s awesome. But not everyone women can stay home with their children. You seem to ignore the reality that some women have NO CHOICE. Well, unless those women want to get on welfare. Now that’s just an awesome choice. And even women who cannot stay home all day with their children can raise children who grow into very good and productive children.

Did you know that not all care while a person works is provided by “daycare workers”? My son never went to business that was a “daycare”. When he was young, when I was at work, he was cared for by my mother and by a very close friend who was the mother of his best friend. I know many women who work and have made arrangement that for care for their children that are not ‘daycare businesses’. 



Evinrude58 said:


> Apparently there were men complaining about this, because the laws have changed, have they not????? Perfect example of how some women think that they did it all by themselves..... A MAN never helped them. Back to reality, men are the predominant elected officials, and men represent about 1/2 the voting populace. WOMEN NEED MEN to get laws passed that help women--- now and in the past......


There were some places in what I wrote where I said that men were also involved in the feminist movement. Yes, since up until not all that long ago only men could vote, women did need to convince men that there was a gross inequity. They had to convince enough men that women should be equal to men under the law and have full rights as citizens. Today there are a lot of men who are feminists or who at least truly believe in equality. Men and women need each other in this. And now, men also need women to get laws passes that help men. See how that works. We need to collaborate. And finally we can because we are all equal under the law. Finally. 



Evinrude58 said:


> This is laughable. Everyone knows how slanted the courts are to women in divorces. A woman is almost guaranteed to get cash and prizes in a divorce. I'm just thankful that all those child support payments which feminist women receive from oppressive men, get spent totally on the children


You are the only one here calling men today ‘oppressive’. You might want to get over that victim status you are wearing here.

The vast majority of divorces occur in couples who haven’t a pot to piss in. What assets do they split? They live pay check to pay check. Most divorces are in short term marriages. So there is no spousal support. Child support? Both incomes are taken into consideration for child support. 

Oh good lord. I don’t know any woman who has gotten “cash and prizes” in a divorce. They are lucky if they get 50% of the assets, assets that they have often helped earn. I know that I did not get that.

Women are also lucky if they even get the child support if it’s been ordered. Something like 46% of men never pay the court ordered child support. And for the rest, most never pay all that is due.

It’s not laughable at all. Those numbers I gave for alimony are right out of the IRS and gov. They collect statistics based on people’s tax forms. All men who pay alimony report it on their taxes because they deduct alimony from their gross income. All women who receive alimony include it as income and pay taxes on it. So the IRS knows what percentage of divorce people are paying and receiving alimony, how much it is and how long it is paid.

You seem to completely ignore that divorce laws are gender neutral. A woman who makes more than her husband in a long term marriage has to pay alimony just as a man would. About half of all married women now earn as much or more than their husbands. Women (those awful feminists) and men have been working to make change laws, to go to temporary and rehabilitative alimony. They have pushed to make laws that say that the lower income spouse has to do what is necessary to become self-supporting.

The women who are most likely to get spousal support and child support are the SAHMs who have no way of supporting themselves. Any women who agreed to be a SAHM would be nuts give up a way to earn a living to stay home were she not sure that the divorce laws protected her if her husband walks out on her, cheats or mistreats her. You cannot have it both ways… a woman stays home and earns nothing then gets nothing to help her get back on her feet if there is a divorce. How is that even remotely fair?

Men and women who marry someone who earns about the same as they do, do not end up paying spousal support or child support. So maybe pick a partner who is on equity with youself.



Evinrude58 said:


> That last quote in red----- I don't know what to say about that. Talking about putting words in a person's mouth!!!! I'm happy for all people to get paid fairly and have equal access to jobs, regardless of sex, race, etc. Happy that you made it through the oppressive society we men have heaped upon you all these years......


You have gone on and on about how terrible feminism has been and all the damage that you think it does.


Yet it is only because of feminism (yes both men and women who support feminism) that I was able to get the degrees I got & was able to support myself, my son and my step children. I think that it follows that if you think that feminism and the rights that it has created suck, then the benefits that I have gained from it, the rights to it has given me to support myself and children, must also suck. How can you have it both way? Feminism sucks but the benefits from it don’t? Nope, that makes no sense.

I think that part of the issue here is in what people think feminism means. To me feminism means the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.


Maybe you define feminism as the most radical things you have ever read or heard anyone say about women’s rights. I don’t know.


----------



## EleGirl

Evinrude58 said:


> Untrue, lots of reverse discrimination laws that do just that.


Please provide a list of some of the reverse discrimination laws so I can check them out.


----------



## jld

I think this is what the authors of the study may have been picking up on:

_'But what we hear from many mums is: I have no choice, I have to work, I don't love my career, my childminder is taking half my salary and I'd rather bring up my children myself but I can't afford to.

'If you enjoy your job and it's a fulfilling career, that is a positive choice.. but if it's not, it's almost in some ways that we got it all, then found that actually it wasn't quite what we wanted.'_

Women have it all but are less happy than forty years ago... | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Ynot

EleGirl said:


> I think that part of the issue here is in what people think feminism means. To me feminism means the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
> 
> 
> Maybe you define feminism as the most radical things you have ever read or heard anyone say about women’s rights. I don’t know.


No the part of the issue is that YOU continue to define feminism as something that it is NOT today. It, like the civil rights movement is NOT about equality but about special treatment. I have yet to see anyone say anything against equality, what most everyone has suggested is that they are not in favor of special treatment aka privileges such as guaranteed number of slots in college programs (regardless of qualifications) or funding of money losing athletic programs at colleges just because the football team makes boat loads of money for the school.

As I said before, YOU should be proud of what YOU did. As should ANYBODY who accomplishes what they set out to do with life - male or female. My sisters are a Doctor of Special Education, a nurse, and a Doctor of micro-biology, not because some women burned her bra in the 1960's but because they chose to do something more than be housewives or mothers Which they are as well. It is sad that so many people identify with some group rather than take credit for their own efforts.


----------



## Evinrude58

Elegirl, 
I enjoy your posts . Enjoy a good argument.
But this one is too much for me. I believe women can be treated unfairly in the workforce, believe there should be equal opportunity for them. Also, regardless of statistics, I believe courts to be highly slanted toward women. Unfairly.
Some women want all the equal rights, then suddenly are these helpless souls when they divorce and don't want to work. If they're married to a self-made wealthy man, they get 25% of his salary or so for child support....
My best friend payed for his wife to go to medical school. She got out, had an affair with the first doctor she ever worked with who was 20 years her elder, and my friend was forced to pay her xx,xxx$ a month in child support and 50% of his assets that HE worked for all his life. 50% of his interest in a group he was in that he hasn't even received back himself. She did no parenting and supported him zero with domestic activities. She gets nothing now, after her new husband held my friend's daughter down while his ex punched her, and slapped his daughter so hard it left a handprint on her face because she ran to her sister's aid. But before hand, collected over a million from him. She's a dr. Guess how much child support he receives from her now that he has both children full time? Zero. Nothing.
I've seen how "fair" these "neutral" laws are firsthand. 
So, yes, I've got some bias and anger over what I've seen a few women do to men through the years that were aided by the law in their cruel treatment of men that weren't bad guys.
I will not post further, I'm overzealous in my feelings toward the way the law treats men.
It's obvious you are very zealous in your defense of mistreatment to women. I'm sure you are right in much of your observations/assertions.
I appreciate your willingness to defend what you believe to be right. I don't care for people who hide what they really think and are sneaky. I think I'll settle down on this thread and just observe. Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings unnecessarily.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blondilocks

One needs to separate the tenets of feminism from how courts are unfairly treating some divorce cases. Or, why some colleges are drafting seemingly unfair admissions policies. We can't blame the fact that women are NOW allowed to vote for the fact that we NOW have clowns running for the Presidency. Perspective, people.


----------



## Fozzy

jld said:


> I think this is what the authors of the study may have been picking up on:
> 
> _'But what we hear from many mums is: I have no choice, I have to work, I don't love my career, my childminder is taking half my salary and I'd rather bring up my children myself but I can't afford to.
> 
> 'If you enjoy your job and it's a fulfilling career, that is a positive choice.. but if it's not, it's almost in some ways that we got it all, then found that actually it wasn't quite what we wanted.'_
> 
> Women have it all but are less happy than forty years ago... | Daily Mail Online


I think there's a lot of truth there. I don't begrudge anyone their choices in life. What we've seen happen however is that as more households become multi-income, it's become progressively harder for households to NOT be multi-income and still maintain the same standard of living. I'm not talking about living high-&-mighty either. I'm talking about being able to pay utilities, buy food and have decent health insurance.

My wife would LOVE to stay home and raise our kids, but realistically it's just not going to happen. She doesn't have a choice in that regard any more than I do. And for a discussion stemming from people wanting more choices in life, I think that's kind of sad.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Fozzy said:


> I think there's a lot of truth there. I don't begrudge anyone their choices in life. What we've seen happen however is that as more households become multi-income, it's become progressively harder for households to NOT be multi-income and still maintain the same standard of living. I'm not talking about living high-&-mighty either. I'm talking about being able to pay utilities, buy food and have decent health insurance.
> 
> My wife would LOVE to stay home and raise our kids, but realistically it's just not going to happen. She doesn't have a choice in that regard any more than I do. And for a discussion stemming from people wanting more choices in life, I think that's kind of sad.



I did stay at home for 5 years and tbh it wasn't for me.....I was pretty miserable. Part of it was probably that my ex was not a nice person, but part of it is that I really wanted to build a career that challenged me intellectually.

And I found it to be very isolating.

I am much happier now that I work, and I get to mix with nerds like me. My boys loved day care, and so help me if I picked them up during play doh time 

And they benefitted from me being happier

They are now teenagers and we are very close. They look up to me and watched me build my career, and often come to me for advice.

My aunt, otoh, never wanted anything but to be a sahm, which she got with my uncle. She is happy and close to her kids too.

So we both made our choices and are both happy.....my uncle was happy for her to be home and my hb is happy that I have a good job I like. 

To each his own I say.....I only ask that people own their choices.

That's real feminism.....choices, which of course should always be made with consideration for your life partner and kids.

I have found that parents of opposite sex kids have the most well rounded perspective. As a woman I have my views, but I also adore my boys and think about the issues that will face them as men. I want them to have the fairest shake possible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Duguesclin

Fozzy said:


> I think there's a lot of truth there. I don't begrudge anyone their choices in life. What we've seen happen however is that as more households become multi-income, it's become progressively harder for households to NOT be multi-income and still maintain the same standard of living. I'm not talking about living high-&-mighty either. I'm talking about being able to pay utilities, buy food and have decent health insurance.
> 
> My wife would LOVE to stay home and raise our kids, but realistically it's just not going to happen. She doesn't have a choice in that regard any more than I do. And for a discussion stemming from people wanting more choices in life, I think that's kind of sad.


It is not like I made a ton of money when our kids were young. We still had my wife stay home. We still live in the same ranch house and often have had only one car. When there is a will, there is a way.

But the fact is that our society today needs women to work. Look at Japan, their economy is stuck because they do not have enough people working. They desperately need more workers. 

America is fortunate with women working and a high level of immigration. This being said, I still believe a mother at home is the best gift a woman can give to her kids, and to her husband. His life will be much easier.


----------



## Duguesclin

lifeistooshort said:


> I did stay at home for 5 years and tbh it wasn't for me.....I was pretty miserable. Part of it was probably that my ex was not a nice person, but part of it is that I really wanted to build a career that challenged me intellectually.
> 
> And I found it to be very isolating.
> 
> I am much happier now that I work, and I get to mix with nerds like me. My boys loved day care, and so help me if I picked them up during play doh time
> 
> And they benefitted from me being happier
> 
> They are now teenagers and we are very close. They look up to me and watched me build my career, and often come to me for advice.
> 
> My aunt, otoh, never wanted anything but to be a sahm, which she got with my uncle. She is happy and close to her kids too.
> 
> So we both made our choices and are both happy.....my uncle was happy for her to be home and my hb is happy that I have a good job I like.
> 
> To each his own I say.....I only ask that people own their choices.
> 
> That's real feminism.....choices, which of course should always be made with consideration for your life partner and kids.
> 
> I have found that parents of opposite sex kids have the most well rounded perspective. As a woman I have my views, but I also adore my boys and think about the issues that will face them as men. I want them to have the fairest shake possible.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree with you, we have to own our choices. And there is no one size fits all.

This Phyllis made her own too and she fought for them. Some may not agree with her, but we all have 1st amendment rights.

My wife has felt very isolated too and has felt starved for intellectual stimulation. It is very hard to stay home, regardless what the MRA guys claim.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Duguesclin said:


> I agree with you, we have to own our choices. And there is no one size fits all.
> 
> This Phyllis made her own too and she fought for them. Some may not agree with her, but we all have 1st amendment rights.
> 
> My wife has felt very isolated too and has felt starved for intellectual stimulation. It is very hard to stay home, regardless what the MRA guys claim.


Your wife doesn't give herself enough credit for being smart 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

100 Everyday Ways That Feminism Has Changed My Life ? Everyday Feminism


----------



## soccermom2three

jld said:


> Blondi, you are in your 60s, no? Would you say that women seemed happier in the 70s, or would you completely disagree with that?




Just to answer this too. My mom is 73 now. In the 1970's she was a housewife, took Valium and had a nervous breakdown so I don't think she was happy.


----------



## lifeistooshort

soccermom2three said:


> Just to answer this too. My mom is 73 now. In the 1970's she was a housewife, took Valium and had a nervous breakdown so I don't think she was happy.


My mom is in her late 60's and she has commented many times that she didn't have many of the opportunities I do. 

I'm don't think she really wanted to work, but I suppose that could be a function of the kind of work that was available to women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

No amount of evidence will convince any feminist that men are the discriminated-against sex in the US today.

Male suicide rate being much higher than female suicide rate? 
Men getting much longer sentences for the same offense?
Women sailors allowed to evade sea duty, whereas men would be court-martialed or at least given a dishonorable discharge?
Female soldiers getting pregnant to avoid deployment?
A woman being promoted to admiral with no command experience?
"Yes means yes" policies at universities, where a woman can *silently * withdraw consent and have a man thrown out of school with no right to face his accuser or any due process?

And I haven't even mentioned the total right of a woman to control her reproduction, with the man having absolutely no rights to control the product of his work ("child support").

Yeah, women have it raw today, don't they?


----------



## techmom

tech-novelist said:


> No amount of evidence will convince any feminist that men are the discriminated-against sex in the US today.
> 
> Male suicide rate being much higher than female suicide rate?
> Men getting much longer sentences for the same offense?
> Women sailors allowed to evade sea duty, whereas men would be court-martialed or at least given a dishonorable discharge?
> Female soldiers getting pregnant to avoid deployment?
> A woman being promoted to admiral with no command experience?
> "Yes means yes" policies at universities, where a woman can *silently * withdraw consent and have a man thrown out of school with no right to face his accuser or any due process?
> 
> And I haven't even mentioned the total right of a woman to control her reproduction, with the man having absolutely no rights to control the product of his work ("child support").
> 
> Yeah, women have it raw today, don't they?


Women are more likely to attempt suicide, men use more deadly methods...https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/suicide-gender-men-women-mental-health-nick-clegg


----------



## techmom

Sexual misconduct leads to women being excused from sea duty...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...my-under-fire-for-sexual-assault-allegations/


----------



## techmom

tech-novelist said:


> No amount of evidence will convince any feminist that men are the discriminated-against sex in the US today.
> 
> Male suicide rate being much higher than female suicide rate?
> Men getting much longer sentences for the same offense?
> Women sailors allowed to evade sea duty, whereas men would be court-martialed or at least given a dishonorable discharge?
> Female soldiers getting pregnant to avoid deployment?
> A woman being promoted to admiral with no command experience?
> "Yes means yes" policies at universities, where a woman can *silently * withdraw consent and have a man thrown out of school with no right to face his accuser or any due process?
> 
> *And I haven't even mentioned the total right of a woman to control her reproduction, with the man having absolutely no rights to control the product of his work ("child support").*
> 
> Yeah, women have it raw today, don't they?


As far as the bolded text, don't the man and woman both "work" to make a kid? Not just his work, which only lasts little more than one night. Her work lasts longer when she becomes pregnant, don't ya think?


----------



## techmom

The Admiral does have command experience...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_J._Howard

Send me a link to what you are talking about technovelist....


----------



## techmom

I love affirmative consent, wouldn't you want to have sex with someone who wants to?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ns-yes-california-law/?utm_term=.7f7b2c5424fa

Show me a case where someone was thrown off campus and couldn't face his accuser...


----------



## Blondilocks

A man has every right and the means to control the product of his work if his goal is to not pay child support - it's called a vasectomy. No fair whining after the choice is made. You play, you pay has always been the motto of responsible adults.


----------



## Anon Pink

ButtPunch said:


> I don't know who this lady is and really don't care but in her defense
> 
> 40 years ago women were less liberated but a lot happier than they are today.
> 
> The actual male to female happiness gap continues to get larger.
> 
> Quite the paradox.


:lol: no offense intended to you @ButtPunch by your coolaide is poisoned. 

During the 50's and 60's and into the late 70's women were routinely given various drugs by well meaning doctors to help them cope with their limited lot in life (mother's helpers); with their limited options available; with the ever increasing family with no way to limit their number of pregnancies, no legal way to prevent their husband's access-raised in ignorance then informed her body now belonged to her husband- no recourse should he turn out to be abusive or an alcoholic. 

Ask me how I know? I was there. In our upper middle class environment I only knew which of my friends had drunken mothers (or fathers) or mothers (or fathers) who "couldn't drive the kids around due to some issue unspecified." By the late 70's when I was in high school very few of my friends came from a normal happy family. Or perhaps we all gravitated to one another? 

We're women happier then? A giant hell no.


----------



## Anon Pink

Fozzy said:


> I think there's a lot of truth there. I don't begrudge anyone their choices in life. What we've seen happen however is that as more households become multi-income, it's become progressively harder for households to NOT be multi-income and still maintain the same standard of living. I'm not talking about living high-&-mighty either. I'm talking about being able to pay utilities, buy food and have decent health insurance.
> 
> My wife would LOVE to stay home and raise our kids, but realistically it's just not going to happen. She doesn't have a choice in that regard any more than I do. And for a discussion stemming from people wanting more choices in life, I think that's kind of sad.


Everyone has their base standard of acceptable living. Poverty (above a certain level) is entirely subjective. One of the by products of more options for women was a raised standard of living. Ask anyone who was a child during the 50's and 60's about how the frugality of family life was the accepted norm, whereas today our middle schoolers expect to get the new IPhone shortly after it comes out. 

Our western standard of living, as dictated by the media culture, has become unsustainable. 

Either that I've become the curmudgeonly old lady who bemoans the excess of youth.


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> Everyone has their base standard of acceptable living. Poverty (above a certain level) is entirely subjective. One of the by products of more options for women was a raised standard of living. Ask anyone who was a child during the 50's and 60's about how the frugality of family life was the accepted norm, whereas today our middle schoolers expect to get the new IPhone shortly after it comes out.
> 
> Our western standard of living, as dictated by the media culture, has become unsustainable.
> 
> *Either that I've become the curmudgeonly old lady who bemoans the excess of youth*.


----------



## jld

I would hate living under the financial constraints my parents did. I would never have accepted to be a sahm if it had meant living that way.


----------



## ButtPunch

Anon Pink said:


> :lol: no offense intended to you @ButtPunch by your coolaide is poisoned.
> 
> During the 50's and 60's and into the late 70's women were routinely given various drugs by well meaning doctors to help them cope with their limited lot in life (mother's helpers); with their limited options available; with the ever increasing family with no way to limit their number of pregnancies, no legal way to prevent their husband's access-raised in ignorance then informed her body now belonged to her husband- no recourse should he turn out to be abusive or an alcoholic.
> 
> Ask me how I know? I was there. In our upper middle class environment I only knew which of my friends had drunken mothers (or fathers) or mothers (or fathers) who "couldn't drive the kids around due to some issue unspecified." By the late 70's when I was in high school very few of my friends came from a normal happy family. Or perhaps we all gravitated to one another?
> 
> We're women happier then? A giant hell no.


In your opinion, right.

I am just basing this off the numerous studies I saw online.

Maybe life did suck for the small percentage with abusive husbands.

It's the other 90% I am referring too

and just because women are better off doesn't necessarily equate to happiness


----------



## Blondilocks

This thread is so funny. The only posters on this thread who sympathize with the dearly departed are MEN. Some probably had never even heard of her!


----------



## Fozzy

Anon Pink said:


> Everyone has their base standard of acceptable living. Poverty (above a certain level) is entirely subjective. One of the by products of more options for women was a raised standard of living. Ask anyone who was a child during the 50's and 60's about how the frugality of family life was the accepted norm, whereas today our middle schoolers expect to get the new IPhone shortly after it comes out.
> 
> Our western standard of living, as dictated by the media culture, has become unsustainable.
> 
> Either that I've become the curmudgeonly old lady who bemoans the excess of youth.



A very valid point. My brother and I grew up in true poverty by the standards of both today and back then. I understand what it looks like and I also understand the impacts on education and opportunity it has on children. 

Could we go down to a single income household and survive? Sure. It would involve moving to another area with substandard schools and our kids would suffer for it. 

To Dug's point--yeah of course there is a choice in the matter. One choice is for both of us to be wage slaves so our kids can go to one of the few good schools around here, or we can live like I did as a kid. 

AP--you're right that there is a lot of material excess going on, but it's not across the board. The income gap in this country is an ugly beast.
_Posted via Mobile Device_



ETA: a lot is made about the softness and ease of living that today's kids experience. It will be my DISTINCT pleasure if I can get my children to adulthood without ever experiencing poverty. 

You can instill gratitude in a child without subjecting them to hardship.


----------



## jld

Blondilocks said:


> This thread is so funny. The only posters on this thread who sympathize with the dearly departed are MEN. Some probably had never even heard of her!


Or even know what she said:

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/an...y-perfectly-captured-in-15-disturbing-quotes/


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Or even know what she said:
> 
> https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/an...y-perfectly-captured-in-15-disturbing-quotes/


I am surprised.

I figured you would be her number one fan considering you are living her ideals.

i don't know who she is and could care less

my point was that it is ironic that women are better off but less happy


----------



## Anon Pink

ButtPunch said:


> In your opinion, right.
> 
> I am just basing this off the numerous studies I saw online.
> 
> Maybe life did suck for the small percentage with abusive husbands.
> 
> It's the other 90% I am referring too


Happiness is having your expectations met consistently enough for you.

Women in the 1920's expected life to be brutally hard, expected that some of their children would not live, expected to to know a minimal amount of hunger.

Women in the 1940's expected the post war world to be filled with the things that were rationed during the war. They expected to have one pair of silk stockings among their assortment of cotton and woolen stockings. (My mother and her sisters drew lines down the back of their legs to make it look like they had fine silk stocking!) They expected to have healthy children, mostly. They expected to be able to feed their children and rarely know hunger. They expected their husbands to be aloof, stern, and to be the disciplinarians in the family. They expected to "be happy" if he came home every night, didn't beat her or the children, and wasn't a drunk. 

Women in the 60's expected all their children to live. They expected their husband to be aloof, stern and the disciplinarian. They expected to struggle from time to time feeding their children but expected their husband to be able to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. They expected to spend their lives in the town where they grew up, surrounded by extended family and the friends they grew up with. They expected to care for their aging parents and have them moving in with them. They expected to have several children, and were happy to learn of ways to limit the number of children they had, provided they weren't Catholic, and still keep their husbands happy enough to come home every night and not abandon his family. As some men did entirely without legal repercussions! (My husband's uncle abandoned his wife and 8 kids leaving them penniless and dependent on the church for food and my husband's father and aunt to contribute to keeping a roof over their heads, meanwhile the abandoning husband bought a bar in another town and lived for many years with zero contact with his wife and kids!)

Happiness is entirely dependent on what you expect from life and what life actually delivers.


----------



## soccermom2three

Anon Pink said:


> :lol: no offense intended to you @ButtPunch by your coolaide is poisoned.
> 
> During the 50's and 60's and into the late 70's women were routinely given various drugs by well meaning doctors to help them cope with their limited lot in life (mother's helpers); with their limited options available; with the ever increasing family with no way to limit their number of pregnancies, no legal way to prevent their husband's access-raised in ignorance then informed her body now belonged to her husband- no recourse should he turn out to be abusive or an alcoholic.
> 
> Ask me how I know? I was there. In our upper middle class environment I only knew which of my friends had drunken mothers (or fathers) or mothers (or fathers) who "couldn't drive the kids around due to some issue unspecified." By the late 70's when I was in high school very few of my friends came from a normal happy family. Or perhaps we all gravitated to one another?
> 
> We're women happier then? A giant hell no.


There is a reason the "70's medicated housewife" is a stereotype.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I am surprised.
> 
> I figured you would be her number one fan considering you are living her ideals.
> 
> i don't know who she is and could care less
> 
> my point was that it is ironic that women are better off but less happy


Do you know what her ideals were?

If not, how can you say I am living them?


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> A very valid point. My brother and I grew up in true poverty by the standards of both today and back then. I understand what it looks like and I also understand the impacts on education and opportunity it has on children.
> 
> Could we go down to a single income household and survive? Sure. It would involve moving to another area with substandard schools and our kids would suffer for it.
> 
> To Dug's point--yeah of course there is a choice in the matter. One choice is for both of us to be wage slaves so our kids can go to one of the few good schools around here, or we can live like I did as a kid.


Dug and I have made some "alternative" choices in life. When we bought our house, we did not have schools in mind, for example, as we were planning to homeschool. 

Homeschooling is a pretty cheap way to go, at least ime. And the results can be very good.

There are choices, and costs to those choices. We just all have to be sure, as lifeistooshort pointed out, that we are willing to pay the price for our choices. I think she called it, in her example, "reality feminism."


----------



## Blondilocks

jld said:


> Or even know what she said:
> 
> https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/an...y-perfectly-captured-in-15-disturbing-quotes/


I'm about as 'conservative' as they come and I always found her to be an embarrassment to her gender and her party.

My mom (in Phyllis' generation) once commented that "with her education, you would think she would know better". My take was that she got hers and she didn't want anyone else upsetting her apple cart.


----------



## EleGirl

ButtPunch said:


> In your opinion, right.
> 
> I am just basing this off the numerous studies I saw online.
> 
> Maybe life did suck for the small percentage with abusive husbands.
> 
> It's the other 90% I am referring too
> 
> and just because women are better off doesn't necessarily equate to happiness


 
Note that the studies did not ask men and women if they were happy. It asked the number of hours a day they do things that they do not enjoy. And those doing the study decided that defined if they were happy or not.

In the past men worked longer hours at work and women apparently spent less time doing things that they did not enjoy doing.

Today the men work fewer hours and women spend about 90 minutes a day longer doing things that they do not enjoy. The differences between the genders was something like 1.9%. Statistically insignificant. But that would not sell books and make the people doing the study famous. So they ignored that the difference was statistically insignificant, made sweeping remarks about women being less happy today without looking at any other factors… such as does this really define happiness or unhappiness.

I often do things that I don’t particularly enjoy at work and at home. That does not mean that I was unhappy. We just do the things that we need to do. I’m usually happy even when doing things I do not enjoy. I don’t like picking up dog poo. I have 3 large dogs. Guess what I do, I pick up dog poo. I’m not unhappy when I do it. I’m happy because I am outside enjoying the day. And I do the poo pickup as quickly as possible to get on with the rest of a great day.

See… doing things we do not enjoy doing often does not equal unhappiness.

This is what the press does, takes ‘scientific’ studies, misinterprets them in a way that sells their story and runs with it.


----------



## Fozzy

soccermom2three said:


> There is a reason the "70's medicated housewife" is a stereotype.


Kitty from That 70's Show always made me rofl.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

EleGirl said:


> Today the men work fewer hours and women spend about 90 minutes a day longer doing things that they do not enjoy.


Now this is something I can believe rather than listening the others spew their ideology.

It's not what I want to be true so it must not be true.

Again I have no idea who this woman is or what her beliefs are.

I do support her to live her life how she sees fit.


----------



## ButtPunch

soccermom2three said:


> There is a reason the "70's medicated housewife" is a stereotype.


Sorry but women are just as medicated today if not worse.


----------



## EleGirl

ButtPunch said:


> Now this is something I can believe rather than listening the others spew their ideology.
> 
> It's not what I want to be true so it must not be true.
> 
> Again I have no idea who this woman is or what her beliefs are.
> 
> I do support her to live her life how she sees fit.


While you might not like other's spewing their ideology, Phyllis Schlafly was all about spewing her idology and trying to force it on everyone else.


----------



## soccermom2three

ButtPunch said:


> Sorry but women are just as medicated today if not worse.


That doesn't change anything I posted.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

WorkingWife said:


> I notice this too. Maybe I am wrong but it seems like it is almost always only when a _*conservative*_ is very sick or passes that we get these unnecessary, non-self-centered, nasty tributes/eulogies.
> 
> Andrew Breitbart
> Justice Scalia
> Phyllis Schlafy
> Margaret Thatcher
> Ronald Reagan
> Nancy Reagan
> etc...
> 
> For all the above mentioned, I saw celebratory posts all over the place from liberal friends on my FB feed, Twitter, in here, etc.
> 
> Like the need to celebrate the misfortune of those with whom they don't agree is a compulsion for them.
> 
> I am pretty conservative and thought Ted Kennedy was a destructive force in this country. But I wasn't HAPPY or CELEBRATORY when he had a brain tumor. I just thought how horrible for him and his family. And I don't recall ANY of my conservative friends making cracks about it either. Or when Joe Biden lost his son. So horrible to think about. I heard many of my conservative friends who don't like Biden at ALL saying somber things of condolences, not snide little comments about him at that time.
> 
> Liberals even wished death on Barbara Bush when she was hospitalized.
> 
> I really don't understand it.
> 
> Sure, we all have "free speech" and I'll exercise my free speech to say how incredibly unbecoming people are when they act like that.
> 
> As for Schlafly, I did not follow her closely, but when I did read her opinions, some struck me as obtuse but more were well based and insightful. I think she had a fascinating mind and was actually quite deep in her thoughts and very egalitarian. Also, much of what concerned her about the feminist movement has come to pass. So agree with her view or not, she was prescient. And I do hope she rests in peace.


I've said this before & I'll say it again...one can't be a conservative AND a feminist...not really.. the masses will seek to change you, enlighten you... but I've been told this is not true... a feminist can BE  anything she wants to be...she can have differing opinions, choose a traditional lifestyle if she wishes, be pro-life (maybe -not sure they'd all agree on that one!).. 

No.. if our opinions are not theirs.. we are DIRT and there will be celebrations upon our demise and death.. When I heard this woman died.. I really had no idea who she was! .. I doubt I've ever seen her speak even...so when I seen this thread.. I clicked on it to learn more about her.. reading the vitriol against her.. then someone mentioning she was a conservative.. I laughed out loud.. all makes perfect sense to me ! 

Radical Feminists Keep Attacking Phyllis Schlafly Even After Death


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've said this before & I'll say it again...one can't be a conservative AND a feminist...not really.. the masses will seek to change you, enlighten you... but I've been told this is not true... a feminist can BE  anything she wants to be...she can have differing opinions, choose a traditional lifestyle if she wishes, be pro-life (maybe -not sure they'd all agree on that one!)..
> 
> *No.. if our opinions are not theirs.. we are DIRT and there will be celebrations upon our demise and death.. When I heard this woman died.. I really had no idea who she was! .. I doubt I've ever seen her speak even...so when I seen this thread.. I clicked on it to learn more about her.. reading the vitriol against her.. then someone mentioning she was a conservative.. I laughed out loud.. all makes perfect sense to me ! *
> 
> Radical Feminists Keep Attacking Phyllis Schlafly Even After Death



Oh come on SA, that's a tad melodramatic. 

One can be both a conservative and a feminist. I'm sorry you seem to think otherwise but you're just plain wrong. 

I haven't spent much time on Facebook for a long time so I have no idea what's "trending" and frankly don't give a sh!t what Facebook has to say. 

But once again, feminism as a movement does not have a code, nor a membership card, nor a counsel of elders, nor a spokesperson. What one feminist says is her opinion and does NOT represent feminism as a whole.

I didn't like Phyillis Schlafly but I haven't seen any celebrations on her death. Now if Rush Limbaugh, or Carl Rove died I'd throw a a giant party!


----------



## lifeistooshort

Anon Pink said:


> Oh come on SA, that's a tad melodramatic.
> 
> One can be both a conservative and a feminist. I'm sorry you seem to think otherwise but you're just plain wrong.
> 
> I haven't spent much time on Facebook for a long time so I have no idea what's "trending" and frankly don't give a sh!t what Facebook has to say.
> 
> But once again, feminism as a movement does not have a code, nor a membership card, nor a counsel of elders, nor a spokesperson. What one feminist says is her opinion and does NOT represent feminism as a whole.
> 
> I didn't like Phyillis Schlafly but I haven't seen any celebrations on her death. Now if Rush Limbaugh, or Carl Rove died I'd throw a a giant party!


Get them to go hunting with **** Cheney.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blondilocks

When one reads up on feminism, it is interesting that some of the earlier efforts of feminism are seen in the middle ages in Arab speaking countries with changes to divorce and inheritance laws.

What many women of today take for granted can be attributed to the efforts of the earlier feminists such as voting, inheriting property, being regarded as a legal entity unto themselves, the right to work, education, birth control - all had roots in the first wave of feminists. It has taken several hundred years and the women of many countries to bring about the changes the women of today enjoy.

And for the record, I never burned my bra! Those things have always been expensive.


----------



## WorkingWife

Well said. 

I can't keep track of the currently accepted definition of feminism. I'd say I am a feminist because I have never once in my life thought "I want to do XYZ but I can't/shouldn't because I'm a woman." Nor have I ever thought any other woman was wrong for being a woman and living her life a certain way. But it seems that to the feminists who talk about being feminists really mean _politically liberal_ when they say _feminist_. Conservative women are not members of the sisterhood...






SimplyAmorous said:


> I've said this before & I'll say it again...one can't be a conservative AND a feminist...not really.. the masses will seek to change you, enlighten you... but I've been told this is not true... a feminist can BE  anything she wants to be...she can have differing opinions, choose a traditional lifestyle if she wishes, be pro-life (maybe -not sure they'd all agree on that one!)..
> 
> No.. if our opinions are not theirs.. we are DIRT and there will be celebrations upon our demise and death.. When I heard this woman died.. I really had no idea who she was! .. I doubt I've ever seen her speak even...so when I seen this thread.. I clicked on it to learn more about her.. reading the vitriol against her.. then someone mentioning she was a conservative.. I laughed out loud.. all makes perfect sense to me !
> 
> Radical Feminists Keep Attacking Phyllis Schlafly Even After Death


----------



## WorkingWife

Anon Pink said:


> Oh come on SA, that's a tad melodramatic.
> 
> One can be both a conservative and a feminist. I'm sorry you seem to think otherwise but you're just plain wrong.
> 
> I haven't spent much time on Facebook for a long time so I have no idea what's "trending" and frankly don't give a sh!t what Facebook has to say.
> 
> But once again, feminism as a movement does not have a code, nor a membership card, nor a counsel of elders, nor a spokesperson. What one feminist says is her opinion and does NOT represent feminism as a whole.
> 
> I didn't like Phyillis Schlafly but I haven't seen any celebrations on her death. Now if Rush Limbaugh, or Carl Rove died I'd throw a a giant party!


It sounds melodramatic to you because you're liberal and not experiencing it.

Just because you don't care what is trending on FB doesn't mean it's not trending and a widely held opinion by many. 

Tell that to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Why Ayaan Hirsi Ali?s Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals | Observer) Tell that to the women who spoke out against Bill Clinton sexually harassing and raping them. Tell that to Sarah Palin who was ridiculed and demonized before she even had a chance to express her views. Tell that to Condaleesa Rice, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Anne Romney, Laura Bush, Michele Bachmann... Have you forgotten the celebration by "feminists" when Margaret Thatcher died?

In fact, instead of my listing all the conservative women I've seen scorned and marginalized by "feminists"* I would be very interested to see a list of accomplished conservative women who have been celebrated by "feminists" or even just the name of one.*





Anon Pink said:


> I didn't like Phyillis Schlafly but I haven't seen any celebrations on her death.


You have seen the very first post in this thread haven't you?




Anon Pink said:


> Now if Rush Limbaugh, or Carl Rove died I'd throw a a giant party!


OMG. You just can't help yourselves, can you?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

WorkingWife said:


> Well said.
> 
> I can't keep track of the currently accepted definition of feminism. I'd say I am a feminist because I have never once in my life thought "I want to do XYZ but I can't/shouldn't because I'm a woman." Nor have I ever thought any other woman was wrong for being a woman and living her life a certain way. But it seems that to the feminists who talk about being feminists really mean _politically liberal_ when they say _feminist_. Conservative women are not members of the sisterhood...


 I really don't care to participate in these type threads anymore...there is no point.. no one gives a crap how a more conservative woman may feel in their midst.. 

Basically these women are smarter than me.. more progressive over me.. more independent over me.. what is there to say.. they know it all, they have all the ready answers to anyone who questions them...while those like me are just clueless & misinformed.. (I can still read attitudes though, even if I'm not as educated)... 

It's like if you miss Feminism in any way, you have denied your womanhood.. you have abandoned your sisters.. as though sisters always treat each other like sisters.. ha ha ha.. laughing there... 

It's simply not enough to say one is for equal rights or to appreciate the movement's beginnings / Intentions (Yes it was needed!!) .. but it's almost like -they need our blood or something after this.. to satisfy that we are in oath with them... also celebrating their 2nd waves, 3rd waves , are we on a 4th wave yet ?? 

I just live my life...seeking happiness like anyone else..I love the freedoms in this country... I appreciate where we've come, from the dedication from both men and women.... but I feel we're here.. why does this need to continually be pounded... 

The truth is... the majority of feminist articles -they rub me the wrong way.. some have spit on my values even... I don't find I identity with "the spirit" in them .. and plenty make it clear they don't need a man- in one way or another, this is present in most feminist writings.. 

I'd rather focus my attention & have much more enthusiasm on ways to bring men & women together, loving on each other.. better communication... I dearly LOVE the dance between the sexes..


----------



## Anon Pink

WorkingWife said:


> It sounds melodramatic to you because you're liberal and not experiencing it.
> 
> Just because you don't care what is trending on FB doesn't mean it's not trending and a widely held opinion by many.
> 
> Tell that to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Why Ayaan Hirsi Ali?s Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals | Observer) Tell that to the women who spoke out against Bill Clinton sexually harassing and raping them. Tell that to Sarah Palin who was ridiculed and demonized before she even had a chance to express her views. Tell that to Condaleesa Rice, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Anne Romney, Laura Bush, Michele Bachmann... Have you forgotten the celebration by "feminists" when Margaret Thatcher died?


Sarah Palin???? :rofl:
Ann Coulter??? The venomous media wh0re?
Michelle Bachman?? OMG seriously? The woman who believes hurricanes and earthquakes are a message from God? That we can pray the gay away, because obviously that's what her husband has done.
Anne Romney? Since when has Anne Romney sought the spotlight and are you counting her husband's election loss as another case of liberals attempting to silence a conservative feminist?

I have no idea what you're talking about wrt to the rest. Condaleesa Rice is well respected even when liberals disagree with her. Know why? She's not bat sh!t crazy like Palin and Bachman and she's not an attention wh0re like Coulter.

No, I have no recollection of the celebrations by feminists at Margaret Thatcher's death.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was initially celebrated widely. As she should have been and IMO should still be celebrated. The article said, "some liberals" several times but there was no mention of exactly which liberals and what did they say. Secondly, the article you linked was an opinion piece that lacked any substantiation of the assertions made.



> In fact, instead of my listing all the conservative women I've seen scorned and marginalized by "feminists"* I would be very interested to see a list of accomplished conservative women who have been celebrated by "feminists" or even just the name of one.*


What do you mean celebrated by feminists? Exactly when was the feminist convention when we voted who to celebrate and who to demonize?

Don't confus disagreeing with attempting to silence and discredit. I disagree with you but that is not the same as me saying you're not a feminist. Conservatives seem to have such a thin skin. Disagree with them and they cry persecution. Feminists typically represent people, women, who actually ARE persecuted.





> OMG. You just can't help yourselves, can you?



Lemme add Ann Coulter to the list of those who's deaths I would celebrate.


----------



## AliceA

ButtPunch said:


> I don't know who this lady is and really don't care but in her defense
> 
> 40 years ago women were less liberated but a lot happier than they are today.
> 
> The actual male to female happiness gap continues to get larger.
> 
> Quite the paradox.


40 years ago men were more liberated but a lot less happier than they are today.

Yeah, I pulled that crap out of thin air, just like you did.


----------



## Tiggy!

Anon Pink said:


> No, I have no recollection of the celebrations by feminists at Margaret Thatcher's death.



Working class celebrated Thatcher's death (obviously not the all working class, but it had nothing to do with feminism).


----------



## Legend

She was the Margaret Thatcher of the United States. One of the greatest women of her time. Raised 6 children, she was an intellectual powerhouse and a spiritual giant


----------



## Legend

Are you kidding? This info was all over the mainstream news just a few years ago.


----------



## ButtPunch

breeze said:


> 40 years ago men were more liberated but a lot less happier than they are today.
> 
> Yeah, I pulled that crap out of thin air, just like you did.


Another case of I don't like what I see so it mustn't be true.

Try googling it next time.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Another case of I don't like what I see so it mustn't be true.
> 
> Try googling it next time.


Your theory is that if women are not happy now, it must be because of feminism?

Women who worked during the 70s are saying that, if anything, times are better now for women.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Your theory is that if women are not happy now, it must be because of feminism?
> 
> Women who worked during the 70s are saying that, if anything, times are better now for women.


You are missing the point.....

The studies are not saying that women are not better off JLD

They clearly are.

They just are not as happy.


----------



## AliceA

ButtPunch said:


> Another case of I don't like what I see so it mustn't be true.
> 
> Try googling it next time.


Yeah, because everything you read on the internet must be true.


----------



## AliceA

ButtPunch said:


> You are missing the point.....
> 
> The studies are not saying that women are not better off JLD
> 
> They clearly are.
> 
> They just are not as happy.


Which again is such a massive load of crap. Common sense alone could tell anyone that they cannot measure this.


----------



## Blondilocks

Common sense isn't as common as one would think.


----------



## Tiggy!

Don't worry we still have Phyllis's niece to tell us all what our nature is, how to live our lives and blame everything on feminism :laugh:


Disclaimer: I'm NOT celebrating Schlafly's death so don't get no need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist :x


----------



## MattMatt

techmom said:


> Oh well, the enemy of feminism is gone. My thoughts, good riddance to the woman who was proud to have not ever earned a dollar by earning a wage.
> Good riddance to women who don't see the value of feminism, that to even voice their own thoughts as a woman, whatever they are, is indeed supported by feminism.
> 
> Good riddance to women who want to stay put in the era where women had no choice in the course of their lives...
> 
> I'm sure that the men who feel emasculated by feminism will shed many tears for this woman who embodied everything they wish all women will be.
> 
> RIP


So let's get this clear. 

You are happy that someone who held a point of view that you didn't agree with is dead.

Thank you for sharing.

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

breeze said:


> Yeah, because everything you read on the internet must be true.


"The trouble with the internet is that it is sometimes hard to tell if the quotations are legitimate." -- Abraham Lincoln


----------



## jld

Tiggy! said:


> Don't worry we still have *Phyllis's niece* to tell us all what our nature is, how to live our lives and blame everything on feminism :laugh:
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm NOT celebrating Schlafly's death so don't get no need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist :x


I just looked this up. Her name is Suzanne Venker. She admitted in an interview with the LA Times that Schlafly had household help. 

The controversy around Schlafly may be more of a question of financial means than a debate between the sexes. Rich women, be they liberal or conservative, have more options in life than poor and middle class women.


----------



## Anon Pink

MattMatt said:


> So let's get this clear.
> 
> You are happy that someone who held a point of view that you didn't agree with is dead.
> 
> Thank you for sharing.
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not exactly. A public figure on a crusade to alter public opinion and defeat or create laws more in agreement with said public figure is not at all the same as "someone you disagree with."

I disagree with anyone who thinks premarital sex is wrong. But I respect their opinion and allow they have a right to live their life as they see fit.

If, however, that person begins a public speaking tour for the purpose of outlawing premarital sex, my disagreement now goes way beyond what it was and I now become opposition. As opposition, I do my damn debt to vilify them, to sway opinion more toward mine, and to defeat them in their crusade to infringe on my rights. If they die, I can now be pleased I no longer have that individual to battle against to keep my rights.


----------



## Fozzy

lifeistooshort said:


> Get them to go hunting with **** Cheney.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Or give them a little too much insider information on Bill & Hillary.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> Not exactly. A public figure on a crusade to alter public opinion and defeat or create laws more in agreement with said public figure is not at all the same as "someone you disagree with."
> 
> I disagree with anyone who thinks premarital sex is wrong. But I respect their opinion and allow they have a right to live their life as they see fit.
> 
> If, however, that person begins a public speaking tour for the purpose of outlawing premarital sex, my disagreement now goes way beyond what it was and I now become opposition. As opposition, I do my damn debt to vilify them, to sway opinion more toward mine, and to defeat them in their crusade to infringe on my rights. If they die, I can now be pleased I no longer have that individual to battle against to keep my rights.


And of course it works the same in the reverse direction; that is, if I think you are trying to take away whatever rights I think I have, or stop me from reclaiming them if they have been infringed, it's fine for me to attack you with everything I have. All's fair in love and war.


----------



## alte Dame

I had the opportunity to meet and talk to her years ago and came away from the experience believing that she was a terrible human being. There was no discussing a different perspective. She just KNEW that she spoke the TRUTH. I thought she was messianic and very harmful to women in general.


----------



## Fozzy

alte Dame said:


> I had the opportunity to meet and talk to her years ago and came away from the experience believing that she was a terrible human being. There was no discussing a different perspective. She just KNEW that she spoke the TRUTH. I thought she was messianic and very harmful to women in general.


What caused this opinion? Was she rude about it? Or was she fully convinced of a "truth" you didn't believe in?


----------



## Anon Pink

tech-novelist said:


> And of course it works the same in the reverse direction; that is, if I think you are trying to take away whatever rights I think I have, or stop me from reclaiming them if they have been infringed, it's fine for me to attack you with everything I have. All's fair in love and war.


Okay so can I put you down for a table of ten at my next public speaking event/fund raiser; *An Evening with Pink 
with a special reading from her new book
"Bullies in the Emergency Room"
The Difference Between Being Persecuted and Suffering the Natural Consequences of Backward Thinking*​


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> Okay so can I put you down for a table of ten at my next public speaking event/fund raiser; *An Evening with Pink
> with a special reading from her new book
> "Bullies in the Emergency Room"
> The Difference Between Being Persecuted and Suffering the Natural Consequences of Backward Thinking*​


Sure, as long as I can put you down for the same at my next public speaking event:
*
An evening with tech-novelist
with a special reading from his new book
"How men can have children while avoiding being taken to the cleaners via divorce and child support"
A guide to expatriation and marriage abroad
*​


----------



## Anon Pink

tech-novelist said:


> Sure, as long as I can put you down for the same at my next public speaking event:
> *
> An evening with tech-novelist
> with a special reading from his new book
> "How men can avoid being taken to the cleaners via divorce and child support"
> A guide to expatriation and marriage abroad
> *​


LOL, must be a very short book. The answer is called vasectomy.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Anon Pink said:


> LOL, must be a very short book. The answer is called vasectomy.


Well that and consideration to a woman's earning power.

If you don't want to assume responsibility for supporting her don't support a sahm and enjoy all the things she does for you, and look for a career minded woman and do your part of chores and child rearing.

But that would mean considering something beyond how hot she is.

If you assume the position of financial support you don't get to be shocked when you still have that position after divorce.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

ButtPunch said:


> You are missing the point.....
> 
> The studies are not saying that women are not better off JLD
> 
> They clearly are.
> 
> They just are not as happy.


The studies did not measure happiness.

For example they measured how many hours a day then and now, women and men did things that they did not enjoy.

A person can be happy with their life, over all happy and still do some things every day that they do not enjoy. That's called being an adult.

What the studies found is that men do less today that the do not particularly enjoy. And women do more that they do not particularly enjoy.

But again, that is not a measure of happiness.


----------



## lifeistooshort

There is tremendous irony in a guy who supports a woman like this b!thing about men being taken to the cleaners in a divorce.

How do you suppose we got to a point where that would happen in the first place? It comes from the idea that it's a man's job to provide and women belong at home. That causes her to become a dependent for which the man is now responsible.

That works just fine if you don't get divorced. But not only can you not force someone to stay married to you, why would you even want to? How many men on this site tell each other to divorce over a sex life?

But since people can divorce you create this scenario where the wife is a dependent and has no way to pay her own way, so the hb is responsible.

That's exactly what phyllis Schlafly stood for.....the idea that women belong at home and men provide. Guys, if you think that's so great then don't b!tch about men getting "taken to the cleaners".....that's exactly what you apparently want. You don't get to keep your wife home and dependent and then throw her out on the street if the marriage doesn't work. 

You think you're going to have a little woman at home but if the marriage doesn't work you get to keep "your " money? Yeah, life doesn't work that way. 

If you think women should be at home them you support the idea that they're dependents in need of continuing support.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Duguesclin

The bottom line is that some men think they are entitled to sex. If they do not get it, it is grounds for divorce. But if they divorce, they should not have to pay anything. 

They want no responsibility but only pleasure. 

I think they would be happy to be the male bee. Get to have sex with the queen (a 10) and then die.


----------



## Blondilocks

tech-novelist said:


> Sure, as long as I can put you down for the same at my next public speaking event:
> *
> An evening with tech-novelist
> with a special reading from his new book
> "How men can have children while avoiding being taken to the cleaners via divorce and child support"
> A guide to expatriation and marriage abroad
> *​


Where is your dog in this race? Your first wife worked. Your second wife works. And, you don't have children.


----------



## tech-novelist

Blondilocks said:


> Where is your dog in this race? Your first wife worked. Your second wife works. And, you don't have children.


My interest is in preventing societal disaster and harm to innocent men, not necessarily in that order.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

lifeistooshort said:


> There is tremendous irony in a guy who supports a woman like this b!thing about men being taken to the cleaners in a divorce.
> 
> How do you suppose we got to a point where that would happen in the first place? It comes from the idea that it's a man's job to provide and women belong at home. That causes her to become a dependent for which the man is now responsible.
> 
> That works just fine if you don't get divorced. But not only can you not force someone to stay married to you, why would you even want to? How many men on this site tell each other to divorce over a sex life?
> 
> But since people can divorce you create this scenario where the wife is a dependent and has no way to pay her own way, so the hb is responsible.
> 
> That's exactly what phyllis Schlafly stood for.....the idea that women belong at home and men provide. Guys, if you think that's so great then don't b!tch about men getting "taken to the cleaners".....that's exactly what you apparently want. You don't get to keep your wife home and dependent and then throw her out on the street if the marriage doesn't work.
> 
> You think you're going to have a little woman at home but if the marriage doesn't work you get to keep "your " money? Yeah, life doesn't work that way.
> 
> If you think women should be at home them you support the idea that they're dependents in need of continuing support.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yea I don't get it either. She considered alimony a woman's right that feminism would take away. And she was right because, due to the changes in the law that have been pushed by feminists, it's getting harder for women to get alimony.

Mrs. Schlafly founded and appointed herself chairwoman of Stop ERA, the volunteer organization that became the Eagle Forum. The “stop” was an acronym for “stop taking our privileges,” effectively summarizing the position of the amendment’s opponents. They worried that earlier laws written to protect women — *guaranteeing alimony *and exempting women from combat, for instance — would be jettisoned.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Yea I don't get it either. *She considered alimony a woman's right that feminism would take away. And she was right because, due to the changes in the law that have been pushed by feminists, it's getting harder for women to get alimony.*
> 
> Mrs. Schlafly founded and appointed herself chairwoman of Stop ERA, the volunteer organization that became the Eagle Forum. The “stop” was an acronym for “stop taking our privileges,” effectively summarizing the position of the amendment’s opponents. They worried that earlier laws written to protect women — *guaranteeing alimony *and exempting women from combat, for instance — would be jettisoned.


For sahms, the bolded sounds concerning.


----------



## notmyrealname4

There's no such thing as affirmative action in professional sports.:nerd:


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> Yea I don't get it either. *She considered alimony a woman's right that feminism would take away. And she was right because, due to the changes in the law that have been pushed by feminists, it's getting harder for women to get alimony.*
> 
> Mrs. Schlafly founded and appointed herself chairwoman of Stop ERA, the volunteer organization that became the Eagle Forum. The “stop” was an acronym for “stop taking our privileges,” effectively summarizing the position of the amendment’s opponents. They worried that earlier laws written to protect women — *guaranteeing alimony *and exempting women from combat, for instance — would be jettisoned.





jld said:


> For sahms, the bolded sounds concerning.


The changes that have been pushed by feminists are that when a women is not a SAHM and earns a living, if there is a divorce, the husband should be not have to pay alimony or the wife's income should be taken into consideration and alimony adjusted down according to the wife's income.

Most feminists do believe that women who are SAHMs should be entitled to alimony and the amount and length depends on many factors. For example, in a short term marriage, alimony for a SAHM should be temporary, rehabilitative. Generally for half the length of the marriage. Now if the women can get a job right away, then alimony should be for only as long as it takes her to get a job (assuming she has the education and/or job skills).

Of course for long term marriages in which a woman has not worked outside the home for decades, then long term alimony is a much more reasonable.

In the 1960's - 1980's, during the years of the highest divorce rates, most women were SAHMs and had no way to earn a livable income. So no matter the length of the marriage, if there was a divorce, the husband was stuck with life-long alimony. Or at least alimony until the wife remarried.



So some guys here are very upset that men have to pay any alimony at all regardless of the length of the marriage, regardless of if the woman was a SAHM. They dislike feminism. And they think that they like Phyllis Schlafly because she's anti-feminism. Yet, she was all for that life long alimony no matter how long a the couple was married. IT makes no sense that those men who like a woman who was a strong proponent of a woman's right to alimony.


I hope that's clearer.


----------



## ButtPunch

breeze said:


> Which again is such a massive load of crap. Common sense alone could tell anyone that they cannot measure this.


I guess your common sense since also explains the massive uptick in female depression and suicide since 1970.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EleGirl said:


> The changes that have been pushed by feminists are that when a women is not a SAHM and earns a living, if there is a divorce, the husband should be not have to pay alimony or the wife's income should be taken into consideration and alimony adjusted down according to the wife's income.
> 
> Most feminists do believe that women who are SAHMs should be entitled to alimony and the amount and length depends on many factors. For example, in a short term marriage, alimony for a SAHM should be temporary, rehabilitative. Generally for half the length of the marriage. Now if the women can get a job right away, then alimony should be for only as long as it takes her to get a job (assuming she has the education and/or job skills).
> 
> Of course for long term marriages in which a woman has not worked outside the home for decades, then long term alimony is a much more reasonable.
> 
> In the 1960's - 1980's, during the years of the highest divorce rates, most women were SAHMs and had no way to earn a livable income. So no matter the length of the marriage, if there was a divorce, the husband was stuck with life-long alimony. Or at least alimony until the wife remarried.
> 
> 
> 
> So some guys here are very upset that men have to pay any alimony at all regardless of the length of the marriage, regardless of if the woman was a SAHM. They dislike feminism. And they think that they like Phyllis Schlafly because she's anti-feminism. Yet, she was all for that life long alimony no matter how long a the couple was married. IT makes no sense that those men who like a woman who was a strong proponent of a woman's right to alimony.
> 
> 
> I hope that's clearer.


It's such a great example of how easy it is to sell people something that doesn't really benefit them if you can successfully tap their biases.

Many men don't like feminism, they think women want privilege and resent that they no longer control everything. So many want to return to days of old where they made the decisions and controlled everything.

Cause, you know, us women can't be trusted and don't know what we want. 

But they also don't like being expected to support women, particularly women who divorce them. Now they like divorce well enough when it suits them, but if said woman doesn't have acceptable grounds in their view she's entitled to nothing. 

But Mrs schafly stood for the very things anti-feminist men hate: guaranteed alimony, men obligated to support everyone, women exempt from selective service, etc.

But the guys who hate feminism can't see any of that because all they know is that they hate feminism and so did she, thus she was their ally. Whether her views actually benefitted them are beyond their ability to consider.

Exactly like what happened in the civil war. The fact was that few people owned slaves and most certainly didn't benefit from the very cheap labor slaves provided, but all the rich owners had to do was tap into their racism and dislike of the North and tens of thousands ran to get themselves killed for an institution that didn't even benefit them.

Certainly not unique to men......women do it too. It's a flaw in the human psyche.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blondilocks

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


----------



## jld

BP, I am not sure why you seem to be defending Mrs. Schlafly. You don't take full financial responsibility for your family the way she advocated, correct? I remember from your thread a few years ago your saying that you did not want to be married to a housewife. 

Does your wife still owe money on her student loans? If so, why do you not pay them off for her, since your business is doing well?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

lifeistooshort said:


> It's such a great example of how easy it is to sell people something that doesn't really benefit them if you can successfully tap their biases.
> 
> Many men don't like feminism, they think women want privilege and resent that they no longer control everything. So many want to return to days of old where they made the decisions and controlled everything.
> 
> Cause, you know, us women can't be trusted and don't know what we want.
> 
> But they also don't like being expected to support women, particularly women who divorce them. Now they like divorce well enough when it suits them, but if said woman doesn't have acceptable grounds in their view she's entitled to nothing.
> 
> But Mrs schafly stood for the very things anti-feminist men hate: guaranteed alimony, men obligated to support everyone, women exempt from selective service, etc.
> 
> But the guys who hate feminism can't see any of that because all they know is that they hate feminism and so did she, thus she was their ally. Whether her views actually benefitted them are beyond their ability to consider.
> 
> Exactly like what happened in the civil war. The fact was that few people owned slaves and most certainly didn't benefit from the very cheap labor slaves provided, but all the rich owners had to do was tap into their racism and dislike of the North and tens of thousands ran to get themselves killed for an institution that didn't even benefit them.
> 
> Certainly not unique to men......women do it too. It's a flaw in the human psyche.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think it's a little more nuanced than just "the enemy of my enemy" (which I agree with you is mistaken logic--they are at best co-belligerents). But I think your understanding of the Civil War is pretty childish at best as well. If that's what you think of the motives of the typical Southerner back then, you are sorely mistaken. Your explanation is much more apt at describing why the 5 Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, etc) all joined the South in the war--they were below the white man, but above the black, and didn't want to see that change--and yet still probably doesn't describe the common Cherokee soldier's sentiment or motives either. You completely ignore nationalism, the primary force which compelled the common man to take up arms in the Civil War. 

Regarding men supporting Schlafly, well, it's much more complex. If you take away equal rights, then Schlafly is right, and it would be just to support things like alimony. And most men would agree with that. Most men don't want to compete with women. Most men don't want to see women sent to war. Equal Rights means you need to give up alimony--because you had a choice--and you need to prepare to go to war, because you're our equal. It means we must compete.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> BP, I am not sure why you seem to be defending Mrs. Schlafly. You don't take full financial responsibility for your family the way she advocated, correct? I remember from your thread a few years ago your saying that you did not want to be married to a housewife.
> 
> Does your wife still owe money on her student loans? If so, why do you not pay them off for her, since your business is doing well?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am not defending Mrs. Schlafly. I don't even agree with her philosophy. The only problem i have is the
vitriol spewed at her. I am only playing devils advocate here. 

I respect a womans right to be a sahm or work as long as full time as long as her husband is on the same page with each other. Something that should definitely be discussed prior to marriage. 


I don't see where this belongs in this thread but, the interest on my wife's student loans is well below that of inflation. So the slower it gets paid back the better.


----------



## tech-novelist

notmyrealname4 said:


> There's no such thing as affirmative action in professional sports.:nerd:


Really? So men and women play on the same teams now?

Obviously I'm way behind on news from the "wide world of sports".


----------



## jld

I do not agree with many of Mrs. Scholarly's beliefs, as I am neither a political nor social conservative. But I do share her concern that long term sahms are losing guaranteed lifetime alimony. 

As a long term sahm myself, I have basically put all my financial eggs in one basket: my husband's career and investments. I do to some extent what I can to help him, being willing to move around the world to further his career, for example. But bottom line, it is my trust in his financial commitment to me--in his whole character, really--that is the main "insurance" I believe I have. 

The way Dug and I see it, 23 years ago I basically agreed to put my life in his hands. Along with every birthing woman, I risked death with every delivery. With every year I spent out of the workforce, I have become less able to rejoin it easily and profitably. 

Dug really appreciates my commitment to his family project. He wanted several children and a sahm for them, and was willing to pay for it. He believes it is of great value.

To me, part of the value of feminism is the insurance it tries to offer women who don't marry men like Dug. They have (possible) protection from the law when their husbands either cannot or will not provide it.

But for long term sahms, it looks like it may not be enough protection.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> As a long term sahm myself, I have basically put all my financial eggs in one basket: my husband's career and investments. I do to some extent what I can to help him, being willing to move around the world to further his career, for example. But bottom line, it is my trust in his financial commitment to me--in his whole character, really--that is the main "insurance" I believe I have.


You realize that this was a choice you ultimately made. You didn't have to do this. You chose to do it. I respect that choice but every choice has consequences.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I am not defending Mrs. Schlafly. I don't even agree with her philosophy. The only problem i have is the
> vitriol spewed at her. I am only playing devils advocate here.
> 
> I respect a womans right to be a sahm or work as long as full time as long as her husband is on the same page with each other. Something that should definitely be discussed prior to marriage.
> 
> 
> I don't see where this belongs in this thread but, the interest on my wife's student loans is well below that of inflation. So the slower it gets paid back the better.


But student loan debt is still solely in her name, right? If you two were to divorce, would that debt then be split equally, or would she alone be responsible?

Look, if you don't feel comfortable answering questions about your personal situation, you certainly are not obligated to. Participation on the forum is always free will.

My point, as alluded to a few days ago, is that I see some conflict between attributing the success of the business to her encouragement and willingness to support the family and probably provide health insurance for all of you while you got it up and running, and your seeming unwillingness to pay off her student loans, which financed the education that allowed her to be that financial mainstay.

As you rightfully mentioned last week, you clearly seem to be benefitting from feminism. I just hope your wife is equally benefitting.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> You realize that this was a choice you ultimately made. You didn't have to do this. You chose to do it. I respect that choice but every choice has consequences.


Every choice certainly has risks. There are no guarantees.

But some choices are riskier than others. 

I would not advise any woman with any draw towards being a sahm to marry a man who expects her to ever provide income. If it works out for her to do that, great. But expecting it may lead to frustration and disappointment for both.

Honestly, considering how many women I have either heard or read say they were sure they wanted to work full time all their lives, only to change their minds once the baby arrived, I would advise all young couples to keep this possibility in mind when they make financial commitments. Things can change very quickly and unexpectedly.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> But student loan debt is still solely in her name, right? If you two were to divorce, would that debt then be split equally, or would she alone be responsible?
> 
> Look, if you don't feel comfortable answering questions about your personal situation, you certainly are not obligated to. Participation on the forum is always free will.
> 
> My point, as alluded to a few days ago, is that I see some conflict between attributing the success of the business to her encouragement and willingness to support the family and probably provide health insurance for all of you while you got it up and running, and your seeming unwillingness to pay off her student loans, which financed the education that allowed her to be that financial mainstay.
> 
> As you rightfully mentioned last week, you clearly seem to be benefitting from feminism. I just hope your wife is equally benefitting.


1) Who supported her thru school? ME (Mutually discussed by both of us)
2) Who paid her loans when she wasn't able. Me again.
3) It is not financially beneficial for the family to pay these loans off quickly.
4) I provide health insurance.
5) That is her degree, should we ever divorce I do not get half her degree. 
6) How would she not have benefitted, she has a doctorate degree.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> 1) Who supported her thru school? ME (Mutually discussed by both of us)
> 2) Who paid her loans when she wasn't able. Me again.
> 3) It is not financially beneficial for the family to pay these loans off quickly.
> 4) I provide health insurance.
> 5) That is her degree, should we ever divorce I do not get half her degree.
> 6) How would she not have benefitted, she has a doctorate degree.


Okay, I think we are getting a bit off topic. A student loan thread would be an interesting place to discuss this.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Every choice certainly has risks. There are no guarantees.
> 
> But some choices are riskier than others.
> 
> I would not advise any woman with any draw towards being a sahm to marry a man who expects her to ever provide income.


That would be great advice. However, the amount of men able to fully support a family has rapidly declined since the 1950's. The increased taxes since this time has made it necessary for both spouses too work. An auto mechanic back in 1950 could have a sahm and four kids, eat steak on friday night and take a week long vacation once a year. Those days are gone.


----------



## Pluto2

ButtPunch said:


> You realize that this was a choice you ultimately made. You didn't have to do this. You chose to do it. I respect that choice but every choice has consequences.


I agree up to a point.

Usually, the couple makes the choice, not just one side, unilaterally.
And isn't the real consequence the spouse leaving the relationship who wants to get out of the responsibilities of their prior joint decision. Kind of like having kids and then deciding they are too much trouble and cost too much after their born. Its a bit late for that, isn't it.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Okay, I think we are getting a bit off topic. A student loan thread would be an interesting place to discuss this.


Agreed


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> I think it's a little more nuanced than just "the enemy of my enemy" (which I agree with you is mistaken logic--they are at best co-belligerents). But I think your understanding of the Civil War is pretty childish at best as well. If that's what you think of the motives of the typical Southerner back then, you are sorely mistaken. Your explanation is much more apt at describing why the 5 Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, etc) all joined the South in the war--they were below the white man, but above the black, and didn't want to see that change--and yet still probably doesn't describe the common Cherokee soldier's sentiment or motives either. You completely ignore nationalism, the primary force which compelled the common man to take up arms in the Civil War.


I would not characterize her view of the Civil War as “childish”. That seems like something verging on a personal attack. Her view of the Civil War comes from an education system that is teaching an untrue and superficial view of the Civil War. Most people don’t spend a lot of time reading up on history and thus accept the superficial view that is now taught at schools.

You are right that the civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought because the northern states passes laws that seriously financially punished the southern states. So the southern states decided to break away from the union. There was no reason to believe that the legally could not at the time. But the north would suffer if they left, so there was are.

The Emancipation Proclamation, was something that came about near the end of the war to punish the south for rebelling. It did not free all slaves. The EP only applied to states and territories "in rebellion against the United States." There were about 4 million slaves in the USA at the time. The EP freed about 3 million of them. The remaining 1 million lived in the north and in territories that were not in rebellion.

Why did the EP not free all slaves? Because there were enough slave owners in the north and other non-rebelling territories that he was concern it would cause more problems in an already torn country. There were also four hardcore slave owning border states that remained loyal to the Union while still being hardcore slave states. He was afraid that they would switch sides if he freed their slaves as well. He did not have the support of a lot of non-southerners, non-slave owners to end slavery either. For most people, it was a non-issue. And to top it off, he did not want to turn the war into a crusade to end slavery.

He also did not want to turn the war into a crusade to end slavery, which frankly was not the kind of thing your average Northerner would gladly have his head exploded over.

"I would do it if I were not afraid that half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise." ~ Lincoln

But many historians, and others, have rewritten history to make it seem like the war was fought to end slavery. It was not. At the time, slavery was legal in the USA just like it was in most countries in the world.



Kivlor said:


> Regarding men supporting Schlafly, well, it's much more complex. If you take away equal rights, then Schlafly is right, and it would be just to support things like alimony. And most men would agree with that. Most men don't want to compete with women.


Men’s desire to not compete with women is often painted as some kind of altruistic attitude about men wanting to protect women, such as a desire to not see women go to war. But it’s not altruistic because what it does is that it makes choices for women as individuals that they might not want to make. And it completely ignores the fact that a large percentage of women have no men to support them.


What it really boils down to is that some men don’t want to compete with women in the work force. If they can eliminate the competition of women, keep them in a different part of the work force and lower paid, then it reduces their own competition for job promotions, raises, etc. This is why, many women experience the men they work with dismissing their input, and using all kinds on under handed games to try to remove women from the competition. There is nothing altruistic about men trying to remove women from competition at on the job. It hurts women. It especially hurts women whose incomes are needed to support themselves, their children and often their husband.


Also, keep in mind that we all live a lot longer these days. In 1900, the average life span was about 49 years. We live, on average, 20 to 30 years longer to. What exactly is a SAHM supposed to do after her children are grown? For most women, once the kids are in school, it gets very hard for them to find their purpose in life. Once the kids are grown, it’s even harder. SAH women are no longer working themselves to the bone daily to help their family survive.


What seems to be ignored is that women have always been major contributors to the workforce. But what happened with the industrial revolution is that people, man and wife, no longer worked together on the farm on with a trade to support their family. Very few people, men or women, had a job that they were paid for. The industrial revolution caused most people to leave their farms. They became mostly city and suburbia dwellers. And women become more of a liability/expense than a co-worker with her husband and the men in her family.


What is going on with women entering the job work force is a natural progression. It only follows that women would do what women have always done... worked and helped to support their family. And the only way to do that effectively is for women to have equal rights to earn a living.



Kivlor said:


> Most men don't want to see women sent to war.





Kivlor said:


> Equal and you need to prepare to go to war, because you're our equal. It means we must compete.


If people, men and women, go to war, are we competing or are we working together, collaborating, for a commonly shared cause?

Keep in mind that since after the civil war, the percentage of American men who enlist in our military is tiny… it’s under 10%. We will never see the draft used again unless there is serious threat to US soil. After Vietnam. We cannot even afford to draft everyone of draft age.

We don’t fight wars in large open fields where two large groups of men march to meet and engage is a mass killing orgy. That’s not how war is fought today. Modern warfare is often fought with aircraft, drones. Women can be, and are very much involved in the development and use of these types of weapons. We use computer systems to manage the battle field, to monitor enemy movement, to sniff out for things that forward scouts use to do. All of these things take far more brain power to use than brawn. And the lives of the designers, developers and operators are not in danger.

Now engagement on the ground is also very different. It’s more guerilla warfare, city warfare that generally goes on in the middle of populated areas. Depending on which reports you read, most all deaths in the Iraq war were non-combatants, with a huge percentage of those women and children. The non-combatants were more likely to be killed than were our soldiers.

Women have always been victims of war in huge numbers. When the men lose the war, the woman are generally brutally raped, often tortured and killed. Those who survive are usually forced into slavery. And keep in mind that male slave owners have the sexual rights to their female slaves. This has been the rule of war since the dawn of time. Look at ISIS. That’s warfare by the codes of war before the Geneva Convention. ISIS is not the only group living by those rules now. In the last 100 years there has bene continual war in places like Africa where that is what many people are living under. I know this first hand since I lived in a war torn African country as a child. It’s hell for everyone. One thing my dad did was to make sure that all his children knew how to fight as much as we could… we had an arsenal of weapons and at 10 I knew how to use them. He makes sure that his wife, his 5 daughters and his 3 sons could fight if it came to that so that we would not be victims like so many of the others we knew.

IMHO, its good to train women, like the Israeli do. Good for them to have the experience to protect their country. Why shouldn’t women be involved in protecting the country? We have a HUGE stake in protecting the country and our families. If a woman can pass the physical and mental tests, then why not let them go into combat. 

Women serve with no issues in the Israeli military. Look at the Kurds, there are all female units and they are kicking butt. The female Kurds are fighting in their military because it is only right that when the war in on your own soil, everyone male and female, has to become part of the fight.

On the topic of women in combat. This is strawman argument because most women will never be able to pass the physical requirements to get into combat. There are men who cannot pass it. Shoot, most men in the military never see combat. The vast majority of men in the USA will never serve in the military so most will never spend any time at all in combat.

If a woman can pass the physical and mental tests, then why not let them go into combat. We have a volunteer military. 


Kivlor said:


> Equal Rights means you need to give up alimony--because you had a choice--….., because you're our equal. It means we must compete.


The way things are structured, there is no automatic right to alimony for women. Instead the right to alimony is for both men and women who need it because they have been SAHPs and have lost their ability to support themselves for the purpose of the marriage. And the idea is that most people who will need alimony can eventually get back into the work force. It’s based on financial need and not an automatic right just because we are women.

Most women are good this with. Most married women, 70% work outside the home. Something like 40% of all married women earn as much or more than their husbands. 

SAHM’s don’t have to give up alimony. The fact that they had a choice to work is not reason to withhold alimony. The choice for them to be a SAHM is a JOINT decision. The man had the exact same choice. He could work or they couple could jointly choose for him to be a SAHD/H. So both SAH men and women can get alimony.

But for most women and men who work for a living, they don’t need alimony. And you know what… most women think that’s right.


Kivlor said:


> Equal Rights means you need to give up alimony--because you had a choice--and you need to prepare to go to war, because you're our equal. It means we must compete.


Yep, people compete with each other in an open economy. Is it really so terrible to have to compete with women for jobs? When a man is going out for a job, he is not just competing with women. He’s competing with other men as well. Why is it ok to compete with men for a job and yet so awful to compete with women as well for that job?

And yes we compete with people in the open economy and open society. But we do not, or should not, compete with our spouse and our family, and even most of our friends. We should collaborate with them.


----------



## EleGirl

ButtPunch said:


> You realize that this was a choice you ultimately made. You didn't have to do this. You chose to do it. I respect that choice but every choice has consequences.


Do you realize that it was a choice that the BOTH of them made, together. In agreeing to her being a SAHM, he agreed that if they divorce he will pay alimony.

This is the thing that some seem to miss.... She is not the only one who has to live with consequenses. Do does he. They would both have consequences to face.

If they were to divorce now, he would be sharing his income with her. She might someday be able to earn enough so that the does not have to pay her alimony. But she might not either.

Both of them will be living at a level of income much lower than they were as married because that income now has to support two households.

I don't know why some people, mostly men, seem to think that only women are involved in, and responsible for, the joint choice to be a SAHM.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I do not agree with many of Mrs. Scholarly's beliefs, as I am neither a political nor social conservative. But I do share her concern that long term sahms are losing guaranteed lifetime alimony.
> 
> As a long term sahm myself, I have basically put all my financial eggs in one basket: my husband's career and investments. I do to some extent what I can to help him, being willing to move around the world to further his career, for example. But bottom line, it is my trust in his financial commitment to me--in his whole character, really--that is the main "insurance" I believe I have.
> 
> The way Dug and I see it, 23 years ago I basically agreed to put my life in his hands. Along with every birthing woman, I risked death with every delivery. With every year I spent out of the workforce, I have become less able to rejoin it easily and profitably.
> 
> Dug really appreciates my commitment to his family project. He wanted several children and a sahm for them, and was willing to pay for it. He believes it is of great value.
> 
> To me, part of the value of feminism is the insurance it tries to offer women who don't marry men like Dug. They have (possible) protection from the law when their husbands either cannot or will not provide it.
> 
> But for long term sahms, it looks like it may not be enough protection.


Check the laws where you live. You are not going to lose your right to alimony since you are a SAHM in a long term marriage. You also have your right to retirement and to social security.

It's women who work, like myself who will not get alimony. The laws allow for women who take either path.

ETA: I just checked Texas laws. The max length of time for alimony is 7 years unless the spouse is disabled for cannot work do to the couple having a disabled child. 

So in Texas, a SAHM (SAHD) has 7 years to get back into the work force.

I think that Texas has the most anti-alimony laws in the country.

Now here in NM, I was married for 14 years but was not married long enough to get alimony. I was told that it was to be a minimum of 20 years before any alimony could be considered.


----------



## ButtPunch

EleGirl said:


> Do you realize that it was a choice that the BOTH of them made, together. In agreeing to her being a SAHM, he agreed that if they divorce he will pay alimony.
> 
> This is the thing that some seem to miss.... She is not the only one who has to live with consequenses. Do does he. They would both have consequences to face.
> 
> If they were to divorce now, he would be sharing his income with her. She might someday be able to earn enough so that the does not have to pay her alimony. But she might not either.
> 
> Both of them will be living at a level of income much lower than they were as married because that income now has to support two households.
> 
> I don't know why some people, mostly men, seem to think that only women are involved in, and responsible for, the joint choice to be a SAHM.


Because it isn't a joint choice a lot of times. Men and women just stop working sometimes. I have friends who's wives with college degrees never went to work again and trust me it wasn't a mutual decision. 

I know a woman who's husband smokes pot and plays video games all day. The baby had a flat spot on his head from laying in the crib too long. It's been years now....he isn't going back to work.

I think the only reason alimony laws are getting fair is because women are now starting to have to pay it and they don't like it.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> But student loan debt is still solely in her name, right? If you two were to divorce, would that debt then be split equally, or would she alone be responsible?


By law, student loans are sole debt. If they were to divorce, the debt is hers alone.
But in some states, a person could argue that he benefited from her education. This is especially true since she got her education after they married. So without the education, her ability to earn today would be about what it was when they married. If her income was such before that education that he would have to pay her alimony now, then it can be successfully argued that he benefits after divorce from the reeducation via her reduced need for alimony. A good lawyer could argue that he should pay some portion of her student loans with the divorce.



jld said:


> My point, as alluded to a few days ago, is that I see some conflict between attributing the success of the business to her encouragement and willingness to support the family and probably provide health insurance for all of you while you got it up and running, and your seeming unwillingness to pay off her student loans, which financed the education that allowed her to be that financial mainstay.


Yea, I too thought that attitude was priceless. I think it shows a gross distain for, and perhaps anger at his wife.

But, I think that BP is missing is that he contributing to her student loan payoff. You see every time she makes a payment; it’s made out of community income. And it reduces the amount of money that the two of them have to save, spend, etc. So his attitude is more a reflection of some need to diss her than it is of what is really going on.



jld said:


> As you rightfully mentioned last week, you clearly seem to be benefitting from feminism. I just hope your wife is equally benefitting.


I agree.


----------



## EleGirl

ButtPunch said:


> Because it isn't a joint choice a lot of times. Men and women just stop working sometimes. I have friends who's wives with college degrees never went to work again and trust me it wasn't a mutual decision.


I’ve been through this with a spouse who earns 6 figures decided that he would never work again. What I learned is that I had a choice. If I stayed in the marriage, I as agreeing to him not working. After a few years I divorced him because of it. I was not going to allow myself to be set up to have to pay him alimony.

The fact is that in most cases with a spouse who pulls this nonsense, that threading divorce and being believable is usually enough to get them to go back to work.


ButtPunch said:


> I know a woman who's husband smokes pot and plays video games all day. The baby had a flat spot on his head from laying in the crib too long. It's been years now....he isn't going back to work.


She is part of the problem. She left a baby all day with a man who smoked pot and left the baby to get a flat head. She is not much better than her husband. She had choices… like divorce the guy and put the kid in some care situation where the baby was getting human interaction, had other kids to pay with.

I have no sympathy for a women, or man, who would put up with a lazy pot smoker and allow their child to be abused.



ButtPunch said:


> I think the only reason alimony laws are getting fair is because women are now starting to have to pay it and they don't like it.


Alimony laws have always taken the woman’s income and assets into consideration. The difference is that now more women have their own income and assets. So there is less need for alimony today.


I do agree that women as a rule do not want to pay alimony any more than men do. So it has influenced some things… like laws and precedence that the person getting alimony can lose it if they do not make a reasonable attempt to become as self-supporting as possible.


----------



## ButtPunch

EleGirl said:


> I’ve been through this with a spouse who earns 6 figures decided that he would never work again. What I learned is that I had a choice. If I stayed in the marriage, I as agreeing to him not working. After a few years I divorced him because of it. I was not going to allow myself to be set up to have to pay him alimony.
> 
> The fact is that in most cases with a spouse who pulls this nonsense, that threading divorce and being believable is usually enough to get them to go back to work.
> 
> She is part of the problem. She left a baby all day with a man who smoked pot and left the baby to get a flat head. She is not much better than her husband. She had choices… like divorce the guy and put the kid in some care situation where the baby was getting human interaction, had other kids to pay with.
> 
> I have no sympathy for a women, or man, who would put up with a lazy pot smoker and allow their child to be abused.
> 
> 
> Alimony laws have always taken the woman’s income and assets into consideration. The difference is that now more women have their own income and assets. So there is less need for alimony today.
> 
> 
> I do agree that women as a rule do not want to pay alimony any more than men do. So it has influenced some things… like laws and precedence that the person getting alimony can lose it if they do not make a reasonable attempt to become as self-supporting as possible.


FWIW.....I do believe someone in JLD's case should get alimony. 

ELE....I am starting to agree with your POV on this now. You don't like your situation get a divorce before you have to pay alimony. However.....not so easy when kids are involved. Maybe if men were guaranteed 50/50 custody but they are not. Hard to walk away when it means you see your kids less.


----------



## AliceA

ButtPunch said:


> I guess your common sense since also explains the massive uptick in female depression and suicide since 1970.


Which of course couldn't be related to any other factors... The absurdity behind the idea that our mental health is solely linked to one factor is not one I can embrace.


----------



## Blondilocks

ButtPunch said:


> I guess your common sense since also explains the massive uptick in female depression and suicide since 1970.


This is totally off topic. You state you're just playing Devil's Advocate here; but, it is beginning to sound more like baiting.


----------



## EleGirl

ButtPunch said:


> FWIW.....I do believe someone in JLD's case should get alimony.
> 
> ELE....I am starting to agree with your POV on this now. You don't like your situation get a divorce before you have to pay alimony. However.....not so easy when kids are involved. Maybe if men were guaranteed 50/50 custody but they are not. Hard to walk away when it means you see your kids less.


50/50 is becoming pretty normal in most places.


----------



## Begin again

ButtPunch said:


> You are missing the point.....
> 
> The studies are not saying that women are not better off JLD
> 
> They clearly are.
> 
> They just are not as happy.


The pace of life is faster, the expectations on mothers are higher. 40 years ago my mom could let me run around outside at age 6 by myself. Do that now and neighbors call the cops on you. 40 years ago women didn't have this divide between us of those who worked and those who didn't. The breastfeeding moms vs the ones who bottle feed. There weren't messages about feeding your kids only organic, or how good of a preschool you got your kid into, or what kind of birthday party you threw for your kid. I could go on and on about this. The pressure to be a good mom is everywhere now. And that makes it much harder to be happy. My kids will be going to Disneyland for the first time in their lives this year. They are 8 and 10. And they are pretty much the only kids they know who haven't gone yet. I know people who take their kids every year. I know people who take their kids to Hawaii every year.

This is the "new" American Dream, folks. Be more, have more, look better, get more extreme in all you do in life (I live my life to the fullest is the stupidest mantra ever, but I read it daily. It's just a way of saying I'm fully experiencing the new version of the "American Dream.")

And while men always had pressure on them, women now have a divided camp. Traditionalists vs progressives. And boy do we judge each other. I remember a friend of mine telling me when her girls were 2, 5, and 8 how crazy her life was. She was constantly running her girls around to play dates and little gym and birthday parties and soccer and piano. I thought to myself "WHAT?! You are a stay at home mom! Why are you over scheduling the lives of such young kids?!"

But I know why now. Because every mom is; it's the new way to be a "good" mom.

My mom, God rest her soul, would find what we are doing so ridiculous. And yet we do to to each other in varying degrees. I've learned to rise above a lot of it, but it's not easy. It's all around you. "My child eats only organic" and "little Luke has private soccer lessons between seasons" (the kid is 8). 

Ok. I'll end my rant. But I don't think the above has to do with feminism. A lot of the pressure is actually due to the two camps each judging the other. Just my 2 cents.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> I would not characterize her view of the Civil War as “childish”. That seems like something verging on a personal attack. Her view of the Civil War comes from an education system that is teaching an untrue and superficial view of the Civil War. Most people don’t spend a lot of time reading up on history and thus accept the superficial view that is now taught at schools.
> 
> You are right that the civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought because the northern states passes laws that seriously financially punished the southern states. So the southern states decided to break away from the union. There was no reason to believe that the legally could not at the time. But the north would suffer if they left, so there was are.
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation, was something that came about near the end of the war to punish the south for rebelling. It did not free all slaves. The EP only applied to states and territories "in rebellion against the United States." There were about 4 million slaves in the USA at the time. The EP freed about 3 million of them. The remaining 1 million lived in the north and in territories that were not in rebellion.
> 
> Why did the EP not free all slaves? Because there were enough slave owners in the north and other non-rebelling territories that he was concern it would cause more problems in an already torn country. There were also four hardcore slave owning border states that remained loyal to the Union while still being hardcore slave states. He was afraid that they would switch sides if he freed their slaves as well. He did not have the support of a lot of non-southerners, non-slave owners to end slavery either. For most people, it was a non-issue. And to top it off, he did not want to turn the war into a crusade to end slavery.
> 
> He also did not want to turn the war into a crusade to end slavery, which frankly was not the kind of thing your average Northerner would gladly have his head exploded over.
> 
> "I would do it if I were not afraid that half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise." ~ Lincoln
> 
> But many historians, and others, have rewritten history to make it seem like the war was fought to end slavery. It was not. At the time, slavery was legal in the USA just like it was in most countries in the world.


 Interesting .. we just came back from Gettysburg PA days ago, where the Civil War took place... in 3 days.. 51,000 dead.. we toured the battlefield, seen all the monuments, walked on "Little Round Top", explored the Heritage Museum, watched movies, authentic pictures of the horror, men's bloated bodies along side their horses, lined up in farmers backyards.. the courage for these men to stand side by side between flags in front of canons -for a cause...

And still if someone asked us *WHY* this took place.. I wouldn't have the answer - it is murky at best.. 

Husband read it was also due to trade, tariffs and state's rights , besides the slavery issue.. How does anyone KNOW what to believe.. when history has been re-written.. anything in life- is almost taken on faith anymore.. due to such things being done.. for political reasons - mainly.. .. what a shame..


----------



## Begin again

SimplyAmorous said:


> Interesting .. we just came back from Gettysburg PA days ago, where the Civil War took place... in 3 days.. 51,000 dead.. we toured the battlefield, seen all the monuments, walked on "Little Round Top", explored the Heritage Museum, watched movies, authentic pictures of the horror, men's bloated bodies along side their horses, lined up in farmers backyards.. the courage for these men to stand side by side between flags in front of canons -for a cause...
> 
> And still if someone asked us *WHY* this took place.. I wouldn't have the answer - it is murky at best..
> 
> Husband read it was also due to trade, tariffs and state's rights , besides the slavery issue.. How does anyone KNOW what to believe.. when history has been re-written.. anything in life- is almost taken on faith anymore.. due to such things being done.. for political reasons - mainly.. .. what a shame..


Abraham Lincoln's goal was clear. He stated it himself. He wanted to preserve the Union, with or without slavery. 

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blondilocks

Most wars are about economics. State rights or religion or whatever spin is put on it is just a smokescreen.


----------



## ButtPunch

EleGirl said:


> But, I think that BP is missing is that he contributing to her student loan payoff. You see every time she makes a payment; it’s made out of community income. And it reduces the amount of money that the two of them have to save, spend, etc. So his attitude is more a reflection of some need to diss her than it is of what is really going on.


Way off base here. There is no dissing and yes our money is pooled together in which we both have full access too. Yes I understand it is community income. I stated that paying off the loans would not be beneficial to the family with such a low interest rate. It benefits both of us to not pay it ahead of time. We would do better to invest that money or pay off the home mortgage. I don't understand what is so hard about that. 

It's whats best for my family because it is family money.


----------



## notmyrealname4

notmyrealname4 said:


> There's no such thing as affirmative action in professional sports.:nerd:





tech-novelist said:


> Really? So men and women play on the same teams now?
> 
> Obviously I'm way behind on news from the "wide world of sports".



I wasn't referring to men and women.


----------



## Legend

For those who do not know the accomplishments of this woman, allow me to list them:

She put herself through Washington University in 3 years while working 48 hours per week as a gunner testing .30 and .50 caliber ammunition. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa.
She got her master's degree in government in 1945 and was the only woman in her class. 
She also got her J.D. from Washington University Law School in 1978.
She raised 6 children between those two degrees.
She was married to one man for 44 years.
She was named as one of the 100 most important woman of the 20th century by Ladies' Home Journal.
She successfully engaged and debated the most powerful men of her time.
She worked as a campaign manager for Claude Bakewell.
She attended every single Republican National Convention since 1952. 
She helped launch the anti-communist movement in the 50's and 60's.
She was instrumental in making the Republican Party a pro-life party.
She ran the Phyllis Schlafly Report for 50 years with 600+ reports to comment on the day's issues.
She was active in U.S. politics for 1/4 of American History.
In 1964, she published a book, A Choice Not An Echo, which she published herself and sold out of her garage. It sold 3 million copies. It railed against Republican Party elites and corruption.
She wrote 26 other books, most which were written after 10pm when her children were asleep.
She was instrumental in keeping the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" from being added to our Constitution. Ronald Reagan said her campaign against the ERA was "brilliant."
She launched the Eagle Forum, a pro-family movement, in the late 60's and early 70's.
She just published a new book, The Conservative Case for Trump," whom she sees as America's last hope to defeat the "Kingmakers."
She had a tremendous love for our country.

Above all, she was the ultimate feminist, embracing her femininity, loving her family, going toe-to-toe with the power elites of the her time, using her womanhood as a strength, recognizing the differences between men and woman, a patriot, and a champion of family values. 

What a nasty, low-life, scummy thing you have done, TechMom, attempting to degrade such a Godly woman at her death.

Most of us here aren't fit to fetch this woman's coffee, myself included.


----------



## tech-novelist

notmyrealname4 said:


> I wasn't referring to men and women.


I was.


----------



## techmom

Legend said:


> For those who do not know the accomplishments of this woman, allow me to list them:
> 
> She put herself through Washington University in 3 years while working 48 hours per week as a gunner testing .30 and .50 caliber ammunition. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa.
> She got her master's degree in government in 1945 and was the only woman in her class.
> She also got her J.D. from Washington University Law School in 1978.
> She raised 6 children between those two degrees.
> She was married to one man for 44 years.
> She was named as one of the 100 most important woman of the 20th century by Ladies' Home Journal.
> She successfully engaged and debated the most powerful men of her time.
> She worked as a campaign manager for Claude Bakewell.
> She attended every single Republican National Convention since 1952.
> She helped launch the anti-communist movement in the 50's and 60's.
> She was instrumental in making the Republican Party a pro-life party.
> She ran the Phyllis Schlafly Report for 50 years with 600+ reports to comment on the day's issues.
> She was active in U.S. politics for 1/4 of American History.
> In 1964, she published a book, A Choice Not An Echo, which she published herself and sold out of her garage. It sold 3 million copies. It railed against Republican Party elites and corruption.
> She wrote 26 other books, most which were written after 10pm when her children were asleep.
> She was instrumental in keeping the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" from being added to our Constitution. Ronald Reagan said her campaign against the ERA was "brilliant."
> She launched the Eagle Forum, a pro-family movement, in the late 60's and early 70's.
> She just published a new book, The Conservative Case for Trump," whom she sees as America's last hope to defeat the "Kingmakers."
> She had a tremendous love for our country.
> 
> Above all, she was the ultimate feminist, embracing her femininity, loving her family, going toe-to-toe with the power elites of the her time, using her womanhood as a strength, recognizing the differences between men and woman, a patriot, and a champion of family values.
> 
> What a nasty, low-life, scummy thing you have done, TechMom, attempting to degrade such a Godly woman at her death.
> 
> Most of us here aren't fit to fetch this woman's coffee, myself included.


All of her accomplishments would not have been possible without the sacrifice and work of feminists who came before her. The woman dared to spit on the work of women who came before her, who fought for the things she took advantage from and the freedoms she enjoyed. Debating men in public would not have been possible without the suffragist movement before her, women who were cursed at and had insults hurled their way for standing up and defending their humanity. 

She spat on their work, their blood, sweat and tears.

I stand proud to be a feminist, and I am proud of the feminists who come before me and those who will continue the fight.

Some of the posts in this thread show as proof that there is lots of work left to be done...


----------



## techmom

This link is for all of the men of TAM who like to invalidate our experiences:

4 Things Men Are Really Doing When They 'Play Devil's Advocate' Against Feminism ? Everyday Feminism


----------

