 |
posted by Adam on Sunday July 27, @01:39PM
from the MSN-=-M-isandry-S-ponsered-N-ews dept.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt writes "MSN is at it again with: this
Actually, accoring to our old friend Jed Abraham (author of "From Courtship to the Courtroom"), being a homemaker is worth half of whatever it is your husband made when you were being a home-maker (male home-makers don't get similar consideration).
Some more from MSN:
here as well
What's the lesson here for the gals? Divorce the sucker while you still can~
Get this, too:
and here as well
This beaut finishes with:
"Also on the bright side, discovering that a second income really doesn't contribute much financially can free a spouse to learn new skills, go back to school, pursue an unprofitable dream career or launch a home-based business that may pay little during the first few years. If you're going to work for free, after all, you might as well enjoy it."
I.e., let your husband finance your get-set-to-divorce plans so after you take him for half he's worth, get the kids, get his $ flowing in alimony and C/S, you can still go get a job, too! Wooo!!! *Thuch* a deal!"
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economists say that the stay-at-home parent who relinquishes a career may lose about $1 million over the years.
Fact: you can make a million dollars by putting 2000/year in an IRA for 30 years, which simply requires a husband paying his wife $40/week in retirement money for staying at home.
And likewise, there's the usual dumb assumption that child-care is just as good as stay-at-home care(which has been recently proven false); and what price can we put on a child's peace-of-mind-- not to mention a husban's-- in knowing that the nurturing member of the family will always be there for them, rather than the general sense of abandonment and
But I guess that our good ladies have some canned psychobabble to address and refute (i.e. IGNORE) these issues, just like they do to deny everything ELSE that interrupts their doing as they please; so whenever an unpleasant fact gets in their way, they just open a can and give them the Campbell life-- and even if they haven't read some study in Cosmo or Psychobabble Today, feminism has taught women that any blow-off argument will work, as long as they can find their own peace with it.
The truth is that they just don't want to take responsibilty for themselves and their role in the family, so they instead just blow it off with some cheap excuse.
This is why you just can't reason with a feminist-- they haven't the slightest INTEREST in reason, since the only reason they have is to get what they want.
And TRUST me, I speak from experience here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 27, @05:43PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact remains that the person who most often must choose between working at home or in an outside job is the woman in the house.
"must choose": poor, poor oppressed women.
Here's a paraphrase for those who want a reality check:
"Because men are generally considered to be donkeys or walking wallets, men generally have absolute no opportunities to do anything with their lives but be wage slaves. Unlike men, women are generally considered to be human beings. Extraordinary social, cultural and legal indoctrination programs have associated the "right to choose" exclusively with women. Thus, unlike men, women often have the opportunity to choose between working at home or in an outside job."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 28, @09:37AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why they don't apply the same calculations for men's unpaid work around the house:
For example,
What would you have to pay to have the following on call "24 hours a day, 7 days a week"?
A baseball/soccer/basketball coach and wilderness guide for the kids, plumber, an electrician, a mechanic, a general contractor (to take care of leaky roofs, basements, siding, walkways, building decks, etc.), a toaster/hairdryer/computer etc repairman, a landscaper, a groundskeeper, someone to take care of garbage and snow removal, an animal control officer, an exterminator and a security guard (you just know she is not going to go downstairs and check out that noise in the middle of the night).
Now, I don't think you should be paid for any of these things. You can take care of your home and property and have a little pride or you can live in a sh*thole. But we can't expect to be paid for doing the things that are simply part of being a responsible, self-sufficient adult...unless you are a woman. I'm suprised that they didn't add "adult care worker" to the list of stuff a woman does, because after all she has to get herself washed, fed and dressed everyday and somebody has to wipe her ass after all. Why shouldn't she get credit for that? It's such hard work to maintain one's own personal grooming. Sheeesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I first thought this article would be about the same old tiresome sing song that I have heard for 20 years about how much a wifie poo sacrefices for her children and husband by staying at home. However, I found the article surprisingly balanced and about 90%+ misandry free! The female author actually used terms that implied that a man was just as worthy of being a contributing stay at home spouse as a woman. I have to give credit where credit is due and say that this article was overall a plus for men's rights. It is also significant to note that the sources that gave such outlandish inflated figures for the value of a stay at home spouse (read: female) were MALE (himbo) economists! Some men love kissing their chains!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
