"Powerful Verizon Commercial Casts Spotlight on Gender Roles"

Pretty much word for word, only worse in some cases. More examples:

"Put that down, you'll break it."
"You'll get all messy if you do that, stop it now."
"Give that to your brother (or sister) to do, you'll screw it up."
"Clearly, you have your father's gift for math: None" (Laughter)

and my all-time favorite:

"When it comes to chemistry, man, you suck ass!"

I heard that last in so many words from nearly everyone I knew. But really, I was not that bad. I was just bad at taking the damned tests. :)

Nonetheless, I somehow manged to find myself in a STEM profession because, well, after getting away from formal learning environments where I was processed, graded, told what I could and couldn't do, what I was cut out for and not, I actually was able to start doing what came naturally to me. And I'll be damned if it wasn't a STEM field!

One thing though that I did not have available to me was the opportunity to marry someone whom I could expect to pay for me in some way, shape, or form, for the rest of my life. So I had to do what I had to do, learn what I had to learn, and swim or sink. What is being lost in the whole push-girls-into-STEM thing is two inconvenient truths:

1) Many people, in fact, most people of both sexes, really don't like STEM fields. That is because while there is indeed politics and "soft factors" in STEM as in all human endeavors, ultimately, you have to figure things out for yourself and *produce results*. The vast majority of STEM work is productive rather than research-focused. Thus the typical STEM worker must sink or swim by either coming up with working solutions to real-world problems or, if he or she cannot, find another kind of job. This reality is not lost on people and they typically would prefer to find a different class of endeavor that allows more "wiggle room" than does STEM work.

2) Once girls figure out that that they can find someone to subsidize their "choices" provided they keep up appearances, as it were, whether heartfelt or not, they realize that they can pursue a career that requires rigorous standards of success such as computer science, electrical engineering, applied physics, pharmaceutical development, materials science, mechanical engineering, etc. or they can pursue a career that allows them to do much less demanding work, maybe even keep it at part-time, and count on their hubby to be the bankroll. Should she decide later he isn't her thing, she knows she gets any kids they had, probably a certain amt. of alimony/"spousal maintenance" (why is it called that if it gets paid out *after* the divorce when your ex is no longer your spouse?), child support, and of course, some percentage of her ex-hubby's retirement savings. In short, why bother?

If our society is going to see women truly rise to the lofty heights feminists want them to rise to, it has to cut off the "escape route" from reality that females currently have: namely, marriage (as it currently exists) and a de facto presumption of custody/primary residence for any children she has with a man. People rarely change, I mean, REALLY change, until or unless circumstances leave them no practical option but to try something else out. As long as feminists want women to have their cake and eat it too, they will never see their _stated_ aims met.

Ironically, it could be that men bring women to that place of needing to change to rise to the occasions feminists want them to rise to. After all, once a solid majority of men finally and fully accept the dismal realities associated with a marital arrangement involving stay-at-home moms/part-time working moms and reject it categorically as being an unacceptable risk, and presuming the family court legal system stays in the pocket of feminists as it now is, women will have little choice but to actually go down the career paths that are now so in vogue to direct them into.

But that means change. It means risk. And worse, it means no more free rides. Holdest not thy breath...

the direct tv ads where the wife has strings attached. could there be a better metaphor?

the good news? perhaps it is that the best future for marriage, if we have one, is wireless, and much more convenient for all concerned.

taking it a step further, maybe men's future happiness involves having an affordable helpmate dr. Frankenstein could appreciate.

more good news? the Japanese (and others) are getting better at it all the time. of course women are not happy about having the possibility of competition. on relevant blogs they severely denigrate those men who find the idea refreshing. of course, the best rebuttal is that most women have had sexual/marriage assistance since forever, right there in the nightstand.