|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:20 PM July 9th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Boggs is right ON the money!
I think I speak for a lot of men when I say we are getting a little fed up with women's 'catagorical equality'.
Too many of the western world's females want 'parity' without responsibility. Back in the late 70's when I was (God help me) a male feminist I thought that "equality" of women meant just that, "EQUALITY". That is what we were led to believe.
Of course as time went on I began to see that "equality" for women REALLY meant special privliges, special protection and special rights for women OVER men. By that time it was the late 80's. It took me a while to figure it out, but better late than never, I guess.
Any way Mr. Boggs' letter sums it up VERY well.
He sees the situation for what it is and as more and more men are, he is calling it like he sees it.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:22 PM July 9th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"Here! Here!"
Where?!? Where?!?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:37 AM July 11th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Where?!? Where?!?"
Okay, I get it, very amusing.
But let's not forget that this is an activism website, not a playground.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by canaryguy
(nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com)
on 03:14 PM July 9th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The letter is excellent! So is Jerry up for the Op-Ed encore?
Of course there are lots of other problems for women who want to date than what he mentions...
How many men are now willing to date coworkers? Certainly not me! In fact, I see any female coworker showing interest in me as a career hazard. You demanded this one ladies... Don't like it? Too bad!!!
Does she hate men at any level? Think we're all scum? Inferior? Something to be looked down on? Not only are the guilty going to have more problems dating but so are the innocent as well! How do I know she doesn't hate men at some level? You can't tell this by looking in most cases... (Maybe by reading the bumper stickers on her car...)
Does she expect preferential or deferential treatment -- just because she's a woman? Expect us to cater to her? Do all the heavy lifting in the relationship? Expect to be able to slap us around in total safety?
Is she burdened by body shame? Nothing is so ironically annoying as hearing an extremely attractive women telling you how unattractive she is. GET OVER IT!
Is she willing to pay for half the dates? Make an equal effort in the relationship?
How does she communicate? Does she carry hidden agendas? Expect us to be telepathic?
You know what? Maybe I'll pass...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 05:13 PM July 9th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just pulled up Ruth Marcus' June 25, "Marriage Penalty" article and had to write her with my added comment as follows:
Dear Ms. Marcus,
I just read your article entitled "Marriage Penalty" as a result of a message board posting of a reply to you concerning this article by Jerry A. Boggs of Livonia, Michigan. I would like to add my objection to a point of yours and that point is as follows:
>"The blunt truth is that senior administration officials who also happen to be dads are more likely than their female counterparts to have spouses willing to take up the parental slack. Many of their wives stay home with the kids or work part-time, particularly for the duration of what amounts to their single parenthood. The husbands of senior administration moms, by contrast, aren't anywhere near as likely to be on -- or to be willing to put themselves on -- this kind of daddy track."
While what you've said may be true in many cases, I suspect the problem in most cases is based on the woman's choice of a man. How many women would continue to date a man who states to her during the dating process that he's primarily interested in not working outside the home, but rather in staying home and caring for their children while she is wholly responsible for bringing home the bacon. In fact, I suspect that such a man would probably not be making a high-powered salary in the first place which would probably also disqualify him from her date-bait pool of guys.
I further suspect that if we left level of income out of the man-pool qualifications, there would be plenty of men interested in staying home and taking care of the kids full time.
So in the end, it's not men's refusal to change, it's women choices (and attitudes) that are causing them their problems.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:54 PM July 9th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
This is so true. Whenever I suggest to women that I would like the choice to be a stay-at-home father, I never hear from them again. Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned. I won't be your donkey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:54 PM July 11th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Same here.
"I'm no longer your whipping boy,
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm,
no more...!"
(That's a quote from an anonymous poster, last year. I'm not sure what it was in relation too, but it sounds good here.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 11:37 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The FemNags are hypocrits. They wanted choice. What they really wanted was an affluent lifestyle and choice for a Man to support them. That choice may have meant options for Men never was part of the equation of these Flat Earth Misandric abusers. They want the choice to have their Wage Slave (Husband) let them stay home, or work as they see fit. This double standard never occurs to these self absorbed twits. Western Women just say NO.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Marc A. writes "On July 4, the Washington Post printed