Prejudice against women

[JerrySeinfeld]

Also, given a guy who stays on the job from 1988 to 2006 and a woman who takes mat leave a couple of times or even takes ten years or more off to raise childeren, then generally the uniterrupted male carer will flourish to the upper levels. Now this doesn't occur in every case. Women who apply themselves, work uninterruipted progressively toward the top reach the top just as men do. It just so happens that fewer of them make that choice.

Okay then: back it up.

Sure. I believe the exact number, according to your stats is 8% of them make that choice.

Re-read what I wrote. The glass ceiling is, by definition, not a concrete set of policies.

And hence, not refutable and therefore a load of hooey. Let's stick to facts.

Again: what evidence are you basing this on?

Again, 'm not the one claiming there is a problem or a barrier so the onus is not on me it's on you to prove there is a barrier since you are the one claiming it's existence.

Your question about less women having babies is irrelevant and a red herring; we're talking about the comparison in workforce success between men and women. The fact that less women have babies now is now relevant in anyway to this focal point:

Less women than men reach the upper levels of management because more women than men either stay home or have siginificant interruptions in their careers than do men. Whether or today's women have fewer interruptions or fewer women hav these interruptions in their careers does not in any way refute the comparison betwen men and women in the workforce.

COME ON DOGGY!!! THINK I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!!!

Yet they clearly have changed. Once again: as education and income increases, fertility decreases. if things "are as they are" (the very definiton of a "just so" story fallacy, then fertility levels should be fairly constant, as should the proportion of women entering higher education and the workforce.

Again this is a red herring and irrelevant. Women do not face barriers. That is the point. I have provided a clear explanation for your supposed "deficiency" of women in upper management.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Btw Jerry, I notice you're experiencing the same problem. <sigh> Not only does he argue in circles, he misunderstands in circles as well. Over and over and over and over again....

Who's on first base? No. Who's on second base.

I know. And he's so bent on tearing down arguments h forgets to make any.

Remember here- I'm not the one claiming the existence of a "barrier" for women.

Nor have there been no examples given of this "barrier".

Yet somehow DOGGY finds himself asking me to prove the non-existence of one.

[Rue]

In regards to the McKay incident, we know what he said. He said "you have her" in response to Mr. McGuinty commencing the stupidity by making a reference to McKay's dog. It is the utmost in hoppocracy for McGuinty to turn this into what it has become. He is equally as stupid. Technically all McKay said was "you have her" he did not say she was a dog and the inference has come from McGuinty, Layton and anyone else who wants to act all outraged and self-righteous. If he had said you already her, the dog... he would then have to apologize. But at no time did he say she was a dog and the rest is being inferred and in a world of free speech inference and actually saying something is what turns things into trivial pursuit.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake).

If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it.

Now in regards to the world wide trade in women and children as sex slaves or domestic violence or abuse, lets get real and deal with such substantive issues.

I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women.

Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one.

Now since you were so disengenuine to try turn this into being akin to making an anti-semitic remark, let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews. Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf.

Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance.

[JerrySeinfeld]

In regards to the McKay incident, we know what he said. He said "you have her" in response to Mr. McGuinty commencing the stupidity by making a reference to McKay's dog. It is the utmost in hoppocracy for McGuinty to turn this into what it has become. He is equally as stupid. Technically all McKay said was "you have her" he did not say she was a dog and the inference has come from McGuinty, Layton and anyone else who wants to act all outraged and self-righteous. If he had said you already her, the dog... he would then have to apologize. But at no time did he say she was a dog and the rest is being inferred and in a world of free speech inference and actually saying something is what turns things into trivial pursuit.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake).

If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it.

Now in regards to the world wide trade in women and children as sex slaves or domestic violence or abuse, lets get real and deal with such substantive issues.

I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women.

Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one.

Now since you were so disengenuine to try turn this into being akin to making an anti-semitic remark, let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews. Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf.

Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance.

He does think women are stupid. He also earlier said that when you say to a woman "you are a bitch" what you are really saying is "you are a woman."

[Black Dog]

Btw Jerry, I notice you're experiencing the same problem. <sigh> Not only does he argue in circles, he misunderstands in circles as well. Over and over and over and over again....

If any of you could actually answer a question, i wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. Sadly, I expect too much.

JS:

Sure. I believe the exact number, according to your stats is 8% of them make that choice.

Uh..no. That stat is simply the percentage of female managers. That figure gives us no insight into the circumstances or choices of the other 92% of working women.

And hence, not refutable and therefore a load of hooey. Let's stick to facts.

Sure. Just as soon as you start producing some.

Again, 'm not the one claiming there is a problem or a barrier so the onus is not on me it's on you to prove there is a barrier since you are the one claiming it's existence.

I've provided numbers showing the disparity between women in the workforce and their representation in management. I could provide similar figures for education (ie the number of women in undergrad programs versus Bachelor or PHD, the proportion of male to female instructors recieving tenure etc etc.) My hypothesis is that these imbalances can be explained in part by lingering social attitudes that predjudice against the advacement of women. You're allegging something else altogether: that the gap is entirely due to women dropping out of the workforce to start families. But stop and do the math: if more women are joining the workforce and entering the education system, then more should be reaching the top, yet the increase tends to plateau the higher you go. However, given the declining birthrate, the gap is simply too large to be explained soley by women dropping out to start families.

Your question about less women having babies is irrelevant and a red herring; we're talking about the comparison in workforce success between men and women. The fact that less women have babies now is now relevant in anyway to this focal point:

It's quite relevant, as your thesis rests on the idea that women are dropping out of the workforce to have kids, hence the gap at the higher levels. But the higher income and education she has, the less likely she is to have kids. In other words, you're thesis is the that the very women the stats tell us aren't having kids are the ones having kids.

Again this is a red herring and irrelevant. Women do not face barriers. That is the point. I have provided a clear explanation for your supposed "deficiency" of women in upper management.

I didn't say anything their about barriers. I took two simple facts (the increase of women in the work force and the decrease in birth rates) and asked you to reconcile them with your theory.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Btw Jerry, I notice you're experiencing the same problem. <sigh> Not only does he argue in circles, he misunderstands in circles as well. Over and over and over and over again....

If any of you could actually answer a question, i wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. Sadly, I expect too much.

JS:

Sure. I believe the exact number, according to your stats is 8% of them make that choice.

Uh..no. That stat is simply the percentage of female managers. That figure gives us no insight into the circumstances or choices of the other 92% of working women.

And hence, not refutable and therefore a load of hooey. Let's stick to facts.

Sure. Just as soon as you start producing some.

Again, 'm not the one claiming there is a problem or a barrier so the onus is not on me it's on you to prove there is a barrier since you are the one claiming it's existence.

I've provided numbers showing the disparity between women in the workforce and their representation in management. I could provide similar figures for education (ie the number of women in undergrad programs versus Bachelor or PHD, the proportion of male to female instructors recieving tenure etc etc.) My hypothesis is that these imbalances can be explained in part by lingering social attitudes that predjudice against the advacement of women. You're allegging something else altogether: that the gap is entirely due to women dropping out of the workforce to start families. But stop and do the math: if more women are joining the workforce and entering the education system, then more should be reaching the top, yet the increase tends to plateau the higher you go. However, given the declining birthrate, the gap is simply too large to be explained soley by women dropping out to start families.

Your question about less women having babies is irrelevant and a red herring; we're talking about the comparison in workforce success between men and women. The fact that less women have babies now is now relevant in anyway to this focal point:

It's quite relevant, as your thesis rests on the idea that women are dropping out of the workforce to have kids, hence the gap at the higher levels. But the higher income and education she has, the less likely she is to have kids. In other words, you're thesis is the that the very women the stats tell us aren't having kids are the ones having kids.

Again this is a red herring and irrelevant. Women do not face barriers. That is the point. I have provided a clear explanation for your supposed "deficiency" of women in upper management.

I didn't say anything their about barriers. I took two simple facts (the increase of women in the work force and the decrease in birth rates) and asked you to reconcile them with your theory.

Upper management takes years if not decades to reach. So by your theory slightly birthrates should produce slightly higher participation rates of females in upper management.

So talk to me in 15-20 years and we'll make the comparison.

COME ONE DOGGY KEEP TRYING

anyway - gotta run. my wife the CEO awaits

[Black Dog]

Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one.

But our hypothetical anti-semite was talking about one specific Jew, not all Jews. Oh and just to clarify: I wasn't talking about MacKay's remark: I was referring to your condescending response to people's reactions.

let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews.

Please provide one. Thank you in advance.

Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf.

See, your problem is you worry about people on a message board say about Israel. You need to "get real and deal with...substantive issues."

Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance.

Go back and read what I said "big boy". I specifically said it was not an attack on all women.

He does think women are stupid. He also earlier said that when you say to a woman "you are a bitch" what you are really saying is "you are a woman."

Not nearly as stupid as you prove yourself to be with every post. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the "real" eymology' of the word "bitch"

[betsy]

In regards to the McKay incident, we know what he said. He said "you have her" in response to Mr. McGuinty commencing the stupidity by making a reference to McKay's dog. It is the utmost in hoppocracy for McGuinty to turn this into what it has become. He is equally as stupid. Technically all McKay said was "you have her" he did not say she was a dog and the inference has come from McGuinty, Layton and anyone else who wants to act all outraged and self-righteous. If he had said you already her, the dog... he would then have to apologize. But at no time did he say she was a dog and the rest is being inferred and in a world of free speech inference and actually saying something is what turns things into trivial pursuit.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake).

If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it.

Now in regards to the world wide trade in women and children as sex slaves or domestic violence or abuse, lets get real and deal with such substantive issues.

I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women.

Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one.

Now since you were so disengenuine to try turn this into being akin to making an anti-semitic remark, let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews. Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf.

Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance.

Thank you, Rue.

[Rue]

In regards to the McKay incident, we know what he said. He said "you have her" in response to Mr. McGuinty commencing the stupidity by making a reference to McKay's dog. It is the utmost in hoppocracy for McGuinty to turn this into what it has become. He is equally as stupid. Technically all McKay said was "you have her" he did not say she was a dog and the inference has come from McGuinty, Layton and anyone else who wants to act all outraged and self-righteous. If he had said you already her, the dog... he would then have to apologize. But at no time did he say she was a dog and the rest is being inferred and in a world of free speech inference and actually saying something is what turns things into trivial pursuit.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake).

If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it.

Now in regards to the world wide trade in women and children as sex slaves or domestic violence or abuse, lets get real and deal with such substantive issues.

I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women.

Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one.

Now since you were so disengenuine to try turn this into being akin to making an anti-semitic remark, let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews. Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf.

Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance.

Thank you, Rue.

You are most welcome. I respect your strength in your responses. I would like to think I have taught my daughters to be like you in regards to your approaches to this and other issues I have read. I hope so! I also respect if women and men find what McKay said was stupid that was not the issue for me, taking it out of context and giving it more importance then it was worth, to me was the issue.

[STOLYPIN]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../n231606D55.DTL

"A mother of six was gunned down in a residential neighborhood on her way to pick up her children from school.

Alia Ansari, 37, was killed around 2:40 p.m. Thursday when someone pulled up in a car, fired at her, then drove away, police said. Her body was found outside a home, near the sidewalk.

Relatives said they had no idea who would want to kill Ansari, a native of Afghanistan whose children — five daughters and a son — range in age from 3 to 13.

"She was kind with everybody, with neighbors, with any person," said the victim's cousin, Ahmad Farid Ansari.

Fremont police Sgt. Chris Mazzone said no motive for the slaying has been established. The Alameda County coroner was expected to conduct an autopsy Friday.

Police throughout the Bay Area were told to be on the lookout for a man wearing a white shirt and black pants who was last seen driving a black import car with a spoiler on the back."

Religious hate seen as motive in killing

Fremont slaying: Muslim leaders and relatives of Afghan American mother shot at point-blank range say only motive they can imagine for anyone wanting her dead was the garment of her faith, her head scarf

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...AGR7LT6H931.DTL

Killed Thursday by a single bullet to the head as she walked with her 3-year-old daughter on a well-to-do residential street, she was distinguished by a hijab, the head scarf worn by some devout Muslim women. The Afghan immigrant had no purse or money on her, family members said.

Stunned relatives and Muslim leaders said the only motive they could see, outside of insanity, would be hatred.

"Whoever did this did not see Alia Ansari, a mother of six children," said Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, one of the nation's most respected Muslim scholars and leaders, who spoke to the media outside of the Ansaris' modest two-bedroom apartment. "He saw a symbol of something that people are taught to hate."

""We still have no definite indication as to motive," said police Sgt. Jeff Swadener, a department spokesman. "Was it racial? Was it a hate crime?"

". Witnesses said a man got out of a car, approached her and shot her at point-blank range before returning to the car and speeding away."

[Drea]

Black Dog everything you've said.... you are so succinct. Thank you.

Betsy, women have been oppressed for centuries. Sometimes throughout history entire groups of people have been oppressed. But even those entire groups who have been oppressed, oppress their women even further.

I have the right to vote, to drive, to live alone (remember when society ostrasized women who weren't married by 25?).... I have these rights because strong women before me fought for them. I'm thankful for all that they've done under the banner of feminism.

Oh Drea, at least from your response, I've learned a new word: succinct.

I looked it up in the Liberal dictionary. It sez, "a word of many meanings. All on a continuum. Ranging from not at all succinct...to very, very, very succinct. At the extreme end of the succinctness spectrum lies, so succinct: that's the point when there's actually nothing said at all. It's only a fantasy. May also refer to Imagine."

Succinct means consise. Black Dog is very consise. There is no such thing as a "liberal" dictionary. A dictionary is a book full of word definitions.

And no, I'm not going to the google dictionary to get a link for you. Look it up yourself. I already know what it means.

I learned the word "succinct" back in about grade 8. I figured even domestic engineers went up to grade 8.. but perhaps I'm wrong...

[Drea]

Good Wifes Guide

... a good wife always knows her place.

Was this equality?

Come on now. Get real.

The feminists of the 60s fought so that we could be free of this domestic slavery.

I will consider myself a feminist until all the backass attitudes of the past have died away.

Today's mature man doesn't really want a slave... he wants a partner. Today's mature woman doesn't want a daddy... she wants a partner.

Check out:

Do men really want wives like June Cleaver?

Marriage is a partnership that requires both partners provide and receive gratification. Most men would say that being pampered occasionally is delightful, but that they don’t want to be only needed, but also needed. And most men would say that having all the pressure to be the sole provider and protector causes immense anxiety. They want — and need — a partner who will help shoulder some of the burden emotionally or even financially. And most women would find the 50’s housewife requirements utterly absurd and miserable. If one partner is utterly unhappy, the end of the marriage is inevitable.

[betsy]

I learned the word "succinct" back in about grade 8. I figured even domestic engineers went up to grade 8.. but perhaps I'm wrong...

Domestic engineer? What is that?

You mean, someone who drives trains around the house?

The boss around the house?

Someone who coerce the help? Isn't that too oppressive?

[betsy]

Check out:

Do men really want wives like June Cleaver?

Marriage is a partnership that requires both partners provide and receive gratification. Most men would say that being pampered occasionally is delightful, but that they don’t want to be only needed, but also needed. And most men would say that having all the pressure to be the sole provider and protector causes immense anxiety. They want — and need — a partner who will help shoulder some of the burden emotionally or even financially. And most women would find the 50’s housewife requirements utterly absurd and miserable. If one partner is utterly unhappy, the end of the marriage is inevitable.

First it was the medical drama, "House."

Now it's this June Cleaver something.....you on to sitcoms now?

[August1991]

I know this is reaching far back in this thread but I recall this response of Black Dog and the use of that confused word 'oppression':

Are you saying the wives of serfs were more oppressed than the serfs themselves?

Generally speaking, yes.

Are you saying Queen Elizabeth I was oppressed?

She certainly had to work harder to prove herself worthy of the power she never earned in the first place.

Women may not have had the same rights...but that was the system. It was not oppression.

What doe shat mean? A system which denies individuals' rights arbitrarily is oppressive.

Rights and oppression don't always go hand in hand.

What is oppression but the denial of rights?

The Left believes that some people are oppressed and need to be liberated. (Our GG has made this her personal crusade.)

The Right scratches its head and figures that individuals should be free to choose - as long as they suffer the consequences of their choice.

[jefferiah]

Good Wifes Guide

... a good wife always knows her place.

Was this equality?

Come on now. Get real.

The feminists of the 60s fought so that we could be free of this domestic slavery.

I will consider myself a feminist until all the backass attitudes of the past have died away.

Today's mature man doesn't really want a slave... he wants a partner. Today's mature woman doesn't want a daddy... she wants a partner.

Check out:

Do men really want wives like June Cleaver?

Marriage is a partnership that requires both partners provide and receive gratification. Most men would say that being pampered occasionally is delightful, but that they don’t want to be only needed, but also needed. And most men would say that having all the pressure to be the sole provider and protector causes immense anxiety. They want — and need — a partner who will help shoulder some of the burden emotionally or even financially. And most women would find the 50’s housewife requirements utterly absurd and miserable. If one partner is utterly unhappy, the end of the marriage is inevitable.

I think maybe Drea you dont give average people enough credit to understand this stuff. I dont think men want wives like June Cleaver. This is so cliche now. Do you think no one knows about all the "a good wife stays in the kitchen" stuff? Actually I think you are wrong in asserting what most women feel. Alot of people are happy to be housewives, or even househusbands. If you dont want to be housewife thats fine by me. Maybe you got a lot of flack from someone in your family over not getting married or something. I dunno. I think most people nowadays are well-acquainted with people who dont live in the regular 1950s Happy Days mode. People living common law. People doing whatever. So I think maybe you must have had a bad experience personally. But if there are women who like being home too, you cant grudge them that either. I think the financial pressures are no different. I am not saying a wife has to stay at home either. But I think having one parent at home can be a very good thing. I mean you only have one working parent, but also the children get to be children rather than kids raised by public institutions. There is something colder and less loving in public daycare environment than there is in a home. At home you can be loved and love can be expressed between parents and children. Kids like love and contact. When they fall they like to be held. But you cant expect a public daycare person to do this. Also all this daycare costs money. So what people earn from having two working parents, goes nowhere.

Anyways, yeah I am not saying this is necessary either. And I know alot of people need these things, and their are single parents. Etc Etc. But yeah I think you dont give people enough credit to be understanding of women. When I read statistics about women and math, it just fleets through my brain and thats it. I mean you dont really think that the fact that overall according to some study women scored lower on math that this is going to affect a woman's ability as an engineer. You dont think that right? I know you dont. So what makes you think no one else was intelligent enough to see that. I think people trust women more than you think, and if they are qualified they will hire em. Nobody remembers "well Time magazine says women scored lower in left brain IQ tests". Its not a big deal.

[Drea]

While it's nice to be able to stay home and raise the little ones, staying at home until they have moved out is unrealistic.

But that's not what this thread is about -- it's about prejudice against women. Which do still exist even in our modern western societies. It's much much worse, of course, in other countries around the world where women are routinely mutilated, etc.

Personally I'm rather glad some stay home to raise their babies. One woman, my competitor, is gone off to have her second child. I'm really hoping she stays home so I can scoop up all her clients!

Betsy, did you read the links? I wasn't quoting a sitcom from the 50s. (sigh... gotta *reiterate everything) It was a news article. A news article pointing out the fact that most men don't want a domestic slave and most women don't want to be one.

*reiterate -- repeat, say again, recap, retell

[betsy]

Betsy, did you read the links? I wasn't quoting a sitcom from the 50s. (sigh... gotta *reiterate everything) It was a news article. A news article pointing out the fact that most men don't want a domestic slave and most women don't want to be one.

No, to be honest I did not bother to read it. From the title alone, "Do men really want wives like June Cleaver?"....I don't really think it makes any difference at all.

Did anyone here say that all men want wives like June Cleaver? Or that men don't want working wives?

I'm sure it would make an interesting or entertaining read....it's just that I don't rely on polls, surveys or datas or news articles to run my personal life. I want to think for myself, thank you.

If I want to have a career after I'm married, or would want to be the traditional June Cleaver....all I've got to do is be honest with the man I date. If my plans does not jell with what he's got in mind...then, it's choice time!

Is there room for compromise or not? Can I be happy without him or not? You know...that kind of stuff...

But then I'm past all that. I'm married. And my husband does not mind if I want to work out of the house or to stay in the house.

Anyway, what's your point? I don't get it. For someone who's been talking so much of "oppression" from men...you seem to give a lot of importance to what men want.

Why would it matter to you what men want for a wife? Why should you care?

[betsy]

Do men really want wives like June Cleaver?

Oh and btw, I hope June CLEAVER got her name from her husband....not from her reputation.

[betsy]

Do men really want wives like June Cleaver?

Oh and btw, I hope June CLEAVER got her name from her husband....not from her reputation.

Kinda have an ominous ring to it, don't you agree?

[Black Dog]

The Left believes that some people are oppressed and need to be liberated. (Our GG has made this her personal crusade.)

The Right scratches its head and figures that individuals should be free to choose - as long as they suffer the consequences of their choice.

That would be accurate if George W and Steven Harper hadn't come along and plunnged us all through a wormhole into Bizzaroworld.

[Drea]

No, to be honest I did not bother to read it. From the title alone, "Do men really want wives like June Cleaver?"....I don't really think it makes any difference at all.

Of course it makes a difference. There are women (and men) who are miserable in their marriages because of disagreements about "traditional" and "non-traditional" roles in the family.

Did anyone here say that all men want wives like June Cleaver? Or that men don't want working wives?

No one said all men want wives like Mrs. Cleaver. It's unrealistic in 2006.

I'm sure it would make an interesting or entertaining read....it's just that I don't rely on polls, surveys or datas or news articles to run my personal life. I want to think for myself, thank you.

Interesting yes, because it is a report on today's view of the roles in marriage -- which have changed, like it or not, from those a generation ago.

If I want to have a career after I'm married, or would want to be the traditional June Cleaver....all I've got to do is be honest with the man I date. If my plans does not jell with what he's got in mind...then, it's choice time!

Of course. If a couple isn't honest with one another from the beginning then the marriage won't work.

Is there room for compromise or not? Can I be happy without him or not? You know...that kind of stuff...

But then I'm past all that. I'm married. And my husband does not mind if I want to work out of the house or to stay in the house.

I'm not married, but we do live together. Some of the things we do are "traditional" roles. For example, I clean the toilet and he cuts the lawn...

I'm glad you've found a good husband who treats you well regardless of your decision to work or not. (Sorry, but no, being a housewife is not a "job" in 2006, its just too easy to be called "work" IMO)

Anyway, what's your point? I don't get it. For someone who's been talking so much of "oppression" from men...you seem to give a lot of importance to what men want. Why would it matter to you what men want for a wife? Why should you care?

They make up half of the population, of course men are important!

I love men. Strong, sexy, huggable, intelligent men... mmmmmmmm.

[betsy]

Did anyone here say that all men want wives like June Cleaver? Or that men don't want working wives?

No one said all men want wives like Mrs. Cleaver.

So that means some men want wives like Mrs. Cleaver.

[betsy]

It's unrealistic in 2006.

That's quite a general sweep. Why is it unrealistic? What about 2006?

[betsy]

I'm sure it would make an interesting or entertaining read....it's just that I don't rely on polls, surveys or datas or news articles to run my personal life. I want to think for myself, thank you.

Interesting yes, because it is a report on today's view of the roles in marriage -- which have changed, like it or not, from those a generation ago.

Yes, the roles of marriage had changed for a lot of couples.

True, it makes an interesting read....as long as the report is accurate.