It's Payback Time for that Damn Dustbuster!
Glenn Sacks wonders about a USA Today financial colunm that blames men for retiring early:
The opening paragraph of the article gives a clue as to the bias the writer feels towards men:
Yes, those troublesome men. They die earlier than women and therefore should work longer to provide for their merry widow in retirement. Shouldn't it be the other way around? It seems to me that if you are going to die sooner, you will have a shorter retirement to enjoy and therefore, you should retire sooner, not later. But, naturally, the writer looks at what is best for women, so guys, get back to work so your wife won't have to.
Or on the other hand, maybe someone should suggest to wives that since their husbands will be supporting them long after they're gone, maybe the wives should try to make the few years their husbands have remaining a bit more pleasant. Think you'll see that article any time soon?
USA Today financial columnist Sandra Block's column below all but comes right out and says that men are selfish for retiring at retirement age. Instead, men should continue to work, work, work while--guess what?--women should retire earlier.
The opening paragraph of the article gives a clue as to the bias the writer feels towards men:
Here's some advice for married men who will turn 62 this year: If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine's Day, hold off on filing for your Social Security benefits.
Yes, those troublesome men. They die earlier than women and therefore should work longer to provide for their merry widow in retirement. Shouldn't it be the other way around? It seems to me that if you are going to die sooner, you will have a shorter retirement to enjoy and therefore, you should retire sooner, not later. But, naturally, the writer looks at what is best for women, so guys, get back to work so your wife won't have to.
Or on the other hand, maybe someone should suggest to wives that since their husbands will be supporting them long after they're gone, maybe the wives should try to make the few years their husbands have remaining a bit more pleasant. Think you'll see that article any time soon?
posted by Helen at 11:28 AM
73 Comments:
Felame sexist sows obviously view men as their personal slaves, when they aren't being drunken slobs to be picked up after. Work until you die this particular sow proclaims, so your empowered, modern woman can continue to have a kept womans life.
Maybe if the husband retires "early" and then has the time to teach his wife on how to live within their reduced means while he is still alive, the financial impact on the woman when he dies will be lessened or eliminated.
See what happens when women get better educations? They start agitating against men! :-)
h/t your husband
If I had a wife like her, it would take numerous BJ's every week just to keep me married to her, much less working longer than I wanted to.
I don't quite understand why the author of that article is talking about husbands retiring AT ALL.
Wouldn't it be financially better for the woman if he worked until he dropped dead?
Soccer Dad: Thanks for sharing. That is a very powerful article!
"Think you'll see that article any time soon?"
Nope. And the article that Soccer Dad linked to pretty much tells me that we shouldn't expect to see that article in the long-term, either.
"Wouldn't it be financially better for the woman if he worked until he dropped dead?"
I think that's precisely what she's trying to accomplish. Since men keel over at an average age of 75 (versus 80 for women), her advice is merely attempting to shame men or playing on their 'provider's complex' into reducing their retirement time by 24% just to ensure that their woman has more SS benefits. And if the attitude of the woman who penned this letter to the Times Online UK is any indicator, the only thing that modern women care about is your money, not you.
To soccer dad:
I once heard a (male) anthropologist (actually an adjunct professor) say that the U.S. probably became a matriarchy in the 1970s. However, unlike most anthropologists, his criterion was whose interests were being most vigorously attended to, not who held positions of "power".
In a functioning democracy, power is widely distributed. What appears to have happened is that women have elected male politicians, then informed them that if they don't address women's interests, they will be fired. These politicians, wanting to keep their jobs, have complied. This has allowed women to simultaneously massively persecute men and claim that they themselves are massively persecuted. It's worked out quite well for women.
Incidentally, that professor never taught at that college again. I don't know if there was a causal relationship but given the attitudes of the tenured faculty in that department, I wouldn't be surprised.
"What appears to have happened is that women have elected male politicians, then informed them that if they don't address women's interests, they will be fired. These politicians, wanting to keep their jobs, have complied."
--------------------------
I think that's called the "front man" fallacy. Feminists are always claiming that "men are in power", suggesting that these men in power are only pushing through things of interest to men. While women are the majority of voters. It wouldn't really matter if female politicians were pushing through the exact same things. A majority of female politicians may even be worse for feminists, because some may be worried about displeasing the male vote or, more likely, not all women are feminists.
In any case, feminists are good at rhetoric.
I never understood why men want to be married to those types of women (the "mercenary" type). I wouldn't respect a woman like that and sure wouldn't be married to her - but a lot of men ARE married to those types. A LOT. He works his butt off and she sits on hers and determines what to do with the money he earned. Maybe it's low self-esteem on the part of the men.
Work until you die this particular sow proclaims, so your empowered, modern woman can continue to have a kept womans life.
The author is not referring to empowered, modern women. She is referring to marriages in which the man is the breadwinner.
It seems to me that if you accept an arrangement by which your wife cares for you, your house and your children in exchange for financial support than you have a moral obligation to provide for her, just as she has a moral obligation to perform her end of the bargain. The author points out that such women whose husbands retire earlier are more likely to find themselves in poverty when they become widowed and elderly.
It seems to me that bearing that burden of work, work, work, provide, provide, provide is the price one pays for having a wife who takes care of everything for you. In a more egalitarian marriage, neither spouse faces as much pressure as a breadwinner, but both have to struggle with daily life, i.e. taking care of everything on the home front and at work. So either way you arrange your household, there are going to be trade-offs. It's a matter of picking your poison. Egalitarian seems better because there is less of the resentment you see in threads like this and more of a sense between the spouses that "we're in this together."
"It seems to me that if you accept an arrangement by which your wife cares for you, your house and your children in exchange for financial support than you have a moral obligation to provide for her, just as she has a moral obligation to perform her end of the bargain."
-------------------
No, the "stay-at-home goddess" doesn't have an obligation - moral or otherwise - to do jack squat. No judge is going to order her to cook for her ex-husband or have sex with him. Her friends or society at large is not going to expect that or call her a "deadbeat".
A judge may well order the ex-husband of the sit-at-home woman to pay her money, though. In the gross tax declarations from the IRS, around 7 billion dollars in alimony is claimed every year as a deduction (I can find it again if you want). Child support massively dwarfs that, and a big part of child support is really "mommy support" (i.e. $30,000 per month from some big earners - that will buy a lot of pampers and Gerber strained peas).
Anyway, no, the sit-at-home princess doesn't have any obligation, other than to take money from the man.
I DO agree with you though, that a relationship like that is NOT the way to go. I wouldn't touch a woman like that with a ten-foot pole.
Think you'll see that article any time soon?
Only if you write it. ;-)
Totally agree about egalitarian marriages - the only way to go.
I can't get over how every female "journalist" seems to be a whiny, miserable liberal. They must be hell to live with.
To jg:
"I DO agree with you though, that a relationship like that is NOT the way to go. I wouldn't touch a woman like that with a ten-foot pole."
Unfortunately, you may not know you have a woman like that until it's too late. She certainly isn't going to announce publicly how she plans to exploit you. At the risk of bringing up the subject yet again, there is the issue of paternity fraud in married couples. I'd like to meet one women, just one, who (1) says it is morally wrong and then (2) makes an "expensive" (to herself) constructive contribution to changing a legal environment which allows women to bleed men with impunity. There are lots of women who will do (1) and essentially none who will do (2).
Ladies, the BS has gotten awfully deep!!!
Radical feminists and radical Islamists appear to be at two extremes from one another, but that itself leads to many similarities.
Maybe radical feminists and radical Islamists should have more exposure to one another. They will thus negate each other, leaving the rest of us normal people to get on with our lives.
All men are created equal.
Women are created more equal.
Has anyone else wondered why the guy in the ad whose visa (or whatever) has maxed out feels glad that his fiancee finds a way to still get her engagement ring? I would think any man of sense would have walked away from that one - although, of course, marrying a guy who suggests his girl choose from rings that would max out his card doesn't seem a good bet either. It's hard to see that ad as romantic.
My husband is lousy at housework, needs constant supervision, seldom gets me the "right" gift, and does want to sit down and watch ESPN after an 8 hr workday and 2 hrs of commute. Such a louse! Of course, I don't do outside windows - even on the first floor- no shoveling sidewalks and driveways, pooper scooper duty I think NOT. I hope my husband will be able to retire at 62!
Anyway, no, the sit-at-home princess doesn't have any obligation, other than to take money from the man.
My... someone has issues.
an aside..this April my parents will celebrate 57 years of marriage.. but hey, I guess since my mom spent the majority of it a SAHM (then worked and took care of dad when he almost died and took months of recover) nothing but a soul-sucking exploiter. No recognition of the true partnership, love relationship they still have.
Jaysus on a pony, but I feel sorry for those of you motherhaters ... what a life sucked free of joy.
Oh, yeah. What a bitch. I mean, what about being happy? What about self-fulfillment? What about taking time to smell the roses? Why does everything have to be about being responsible and reliable and caring about people who depend upon us? Boorrrring! Life is hard and you need 15 or 20 years at the end of it to rest up for being dead.
Boomers.
The holder of power is not represented by who earns it in this country, but the one who wields it. So who wields the power in the US economy? Women. It has been that way for a century.
Want to test it? Go down to the Mall. Walk into any store. Compare the floor space dedicated to women's 'wants' and those of men.That ratio of rack space confirms which sex is in control of the economy. The lone merchant exception is Sears.
This is the same kind of woman who, having had the run of the house for 40 years, complains that after the guy retires he is "underfoot". How dare he expect to spend time in the house that he paid for!
The lone merchant exception is Sears.
You need to spend more time at Cabela's
I'll tell you what else is unfair that nobody really questions -- the fact that a widow who rarely or never worked for a day's pay in her life (and personally contributed ZERO to the system) but had a husband with a good income can, nevertheless, collect much more in social security benefits than a single man or woman who worked and contributed all his or her life.
You want higher retirement benefits? Fine, then get out there and work and contribute like the rest of us.
I am a widower at age 40. I currently draw survivor's SS on behalf of my children. I use most of it to insure a good future for them, as well as to meet our current living expenses.
Nevertheless, on the third of next month (when the electronic deposit arrives in my account), I'm going to make a point of going out and buying myself something I want that she wouldn't have approved of.
First of all, keep in mind that this article is about people retiring today, who would have started working at a time when barriers to women in the workplace were high. My mother had to petition to have a women's restroom in her law school. And that was in 1975.
That said, I am embarrassed by most women today, who think that men should fully support them financially and also worship their femininity. As a woman working in a male-dominated field (engineering) and in a very equal and happy relationship, I think these women are undermining me and my values. That said, I have also encountered sexism at my rather consrvative workplace (questioning whether my commitment to work inhibits my ability to take care of my boyfriend, being sexually assaulted in the parking garage)
I think this issue is not so much about men and women, but rather about the difference between intelligent, enlightened people and greedy ingrates. The truth is that one can find a wide range of behaviors and attitudes in both men and women, both equally reprehensible.
I see the point of the men's comments here and I agree with them, but I think they need to acknowledge also that there are some men who still have sexist attitudes towards women. Don't malign me because of the women you see at the mall, and I won't hold you all responsible for my boss's public comment that the greatest problem with Amerca is that women don't stay home to take care of their kids anymore.
M,
If most of the women who do easily replaced work like Human Resources, secretarial work, etc. would stay at home to raise their babies, you'd have a smaller labor market which would mean higher wages for everyone. My wife is a software engineer and wishes that most women who are in her field would leave because they're useless in her opinion. If they would do just that, it just so happens that our salaries would probably get stronger in the long run.
M,
Good points.
MikeT,
Not sure what you mean, women have the right to be in the workplace, are you saying that your wife wants the female engineers out too? If so, this sounds extremely sexist--I assume I am misinterpreting your point.
MikeT,
That may be right, and I believe that many people are useless in the workplace and that HR is BS. But just as I don't think jobs should be artificially created and sustained, I also don't think that individuals should sacrifice what they want to do with their lives because it would create higher salaries for others.
Your position advocating that some women should stay home, while somewhat valid, has little to do with the point of this debate, which is that some women exploit men and expect social benefits when they themselves have never been in the workplace.
MikeT: You could look at it the other way around: The incompetent women DO tend to get out of the work force when they find some man who will pay for them to sit home. The incompetent men have to keep blundering through at work.
M: You have a good approach towards this issue.
darleen --
Had he said 'legal obligation', you wouldn't have been able to carp him as that would be true.
Oh, wait. He did. In the paragraph preceding that, which you elided without indicating.
Or, maybe you're indicating you don't believe the stay-a-home princess exists?
By the way, most people dispute that substantial alimony is paid today. As I mentioned above, over 7 billion dollars is paid EVERY YEAR (roughly the GNP of a small country). Here are the aggregated tax returns for the year 2004 (go to Document 475 and then to the "alimony paid" line):
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/fedgov.pdf
Sorry, go to Document 477 (not 475).
Not to gainsay alimony's impact at the individual level. But $7 billion is not a large slice of a $13 trillion US economy. And a country would have to be a very small, very dysfunctional or both to have a GDP smaller than $7 billion.
Just some perspective.
According to this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
America's alimony payers would be around the level of the Congo, Cambodia or Malta in terms of GDP.
LOL
I agree that's not all that much, but it seems that money could be better spent than keeping useless women "in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed". Sometimes the most useless drains on society get the most money, and I never understood that.
oligonicella
when he wrote "no obligation, moral or otherwise" I actually read that as meaning "no obligation moral or otherwise"... you know, actually comprehending what he wrote.
Are there "stay at home princesses"? Sure. Just as there are deadbeat dads..inside or outside the home.
But I'm wondering at the sheer nasty bigotry that is being heaped against SAHMs...as if life at home is one of couch sitting, bon bons, Oprah and mall crawling. Or only "stupid" women are SAHM's.
Thank you all for buying into that genderfeminist stereotype! Way to go to help enforce the idea that the best place for infants is in day care 60 hours a week while both parents work.
feh.
jg
Why limit solutions to "useless" women?
Let's just euthanize all useless people who are a drain on "public resources"... the disabled who draw SocSec more than they've put in ... and every senior who reaches that point in SocSec benefits.
Fabulous! It'll even help with the carbon footprint!
"Let's just euthanize all useless people who are a drain on "public resources"... the disabled who draw SocSec more than they've put in ... and every senior who reaches that point in SocSec benefits."
----------------
I admit that my rhetoric about housewives is kind of nasty. I also think that it may be unwarranted. Maybe, but my problem is that I have an excess amount of nasty housewives in my environment.
So let's get away from anecdotes and into theory: If you're going to allocate money in society (in other words: tell people what to do with the money they earn): Why not allocate that money to people who really do something for society?
I never understood why an emergency room physician of 20 years, or a paramedic, or one of the firemen who saved people in the World Trade Center, but died himself, gets far less money than a woman who married and then divorced a rich guy in a targeted way. Who does more for society? Why not target that money at them?
And, on the other hand, if a woman's goal is to let herself be pampered by a man in return for sex (or cooking or whatever, LOL), then why does he have to pay her when she is no longer providing the service that spurred him into the payment mode?
In other words: why not simply have people work for their own money? Lots of "housewives" have found a rich man again. That is their "work". For the ones who haven't, I would ask: How is that different than an engineer who is fired who can't find a job again? Both sound incompetent.
Ivanna Trump is far richer than Jonas Salk, the discoverer of the Polio vaccine, ever was
Heather Mills, once she gets her settlement from Paul McCartney, will be far richer than Albert Einstein ever was
Lorna Wendt, the ex-wife of GE executive Gary Wendt, is far richer than Ernst Hemingway, John F. Kennedy, Thomas Edison and Ronald Reagan were, COMBINED
Her friggin' reasoning for getting all the millions she got was that she had to organize moves (meaning calling the moving company) when Gary was promoted to a different city, and she had to go to some General Electric functions (where they served lobster and caviar).
LOL - society is really bizarre
I for one welcome my new overlord, the American housewife
darleen -
Feh, yourself.
You might note he used "stay at home goddess". He obviously didn't refer to an equally contributing wife. That was your spin. The use of "goddess" (not princess) set an obviously sarcastic tone for the paragraph -- context. Apparently, your comprehension falls short of caustic humor.
My screed is always against those 'housewives' who don't pull their share and expect hubby, who works and brings in cash, to also do dishes, laundry, etc.
Been a single parent of a toddler through teenager and I can tell you maintaining a house is not an 8hr a day job, much less all day. Anyone who says it is, is lying through their teeth.
Since when did life become a meritocracy? You folks are all so entitled and so deeply bitter that you're not getting paid what you feel you're worth. You might be saying that Ernest Hemingway deserved to make more money than Lorna Wendt (and I think there are arguments to be made against that suggestion) but what you really mean is *YOU* deserve to make more than Lorna Wendt. You know, because you're a really good person who just tries their gosh darned best to lead a good life. Sniff.
I wonder what would happen with any of these guys crying foul about a woman not bringing home some bacon if a Victoria's Secret model said to them, "Sure, I'll marry you and perform all of my wifely duties on one condition. I won't be bringing home a paycheck. Not a dime. I'll just sit home in my teeny underpants doing wifely things and making myself available to you in marital ways."
No, you're right. I'm sure they'd stand their ground and refuse to enter into a partnership in which both players didn't bring a paycheck to the table.
Too funny Zelda.
Maybe I'd better get a testosterone shot, but I don't think I'd last very long with a woman whose only contribution to the relationship was sitting around in teeny underpants.
I realize your comment was meant to paint men as slaves to sex (or whatever negative image you were trying to conjure up), but if the men in your life are REALLY like you describe, I think your comment says something about YOU.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, I wish it said I look good in my underpants but I have three kids so I know that isn't true anymore.
I don't think of being a slave to sex as a negative image. I think of it as evolutionary biology and if that drove more of our discussions as a society it would cut down on this silly rhetoric and then a lot more work would get done by men AND women which would make those of you so obsessed with income a lot happier.
The fact is that evolutionary biology will actually take care of the matter for us. Those men who can't be enticed into a symbiotic (rather than exactly equal) relationship are less likely to get their genes into the future (for a number of reasons). Then women will be left with only virile men driven by testosterone who are too busy working to whine about how little other people are doing. Oh, yeah. Women are gonna hate that.
The fact is that evolutionary biology will actually take care of the matter for us. Those men who can't be enticed into a symbiotic (rather than exactly equal) relationship are less likely to get their genes into the future (for a number of reasons).
Nonsense. Culture operates on a much faster time scale than evolutionary changes in human psychology, so I wouldn't count on it. Not to mention that throughout human history, women have been both expected to bring family resources to a marriage (dowry) and also do strenuous work (women in hunter-gatherer tribes work very hard).
And even in industrialized countries, within living memory, housekeeping really was still a strenuous, full-time job. It's only been during the last 2-3 generations in the 20th century that ordinary women were freed from most of the hard labor involved in housework but were not (yet) really obliged by culture to contribute financially. But that was an historical anomaly, and it looks to me like the free ride's ending...
There are no evolutionary changes in psychology, per se. Psychology might respond to evolutionary chages but that's about it.
I guess I misunderstood the discussion. I didn't realize that the only tasks that could require a woman to stay home would be of the tidying variety. This discussion seems to presuppose either a) a lack of children who need bringing up or b) that the bringing up of children should be farmed out to institutions or individuals other than the parents.
In fact, in your world, a woman who is being paid to raise someone else's children while paying someone to raise her children is doing her fair share. A woman who cuts out the middle man, a "stay-in-bed-mom" if you will, is a leech. Makes perfect sense to me. Now, where's my pillow?
I completely support my wife, who 'elected' to stay at home five years ago. So obviously the author of that article can eat my shorts.
Wow, the venom here is intense. Good points, Zelda.
JG, your point is valid that women get too much alimony. So if you want to make fighting against women who exploit men financially your cause, that's fine and valid. But don't tell me that this proves that women exploit men globally. Someone else might take up the cause of reducing domestic violence against women or absent fathers.
Also note that many scientists and thinkers make far less than what they are "worth". Why? Because prices and terms, including those of marraige, are set by a mostly free market. I wish we could talk less about allocating money in society and more about individuals' abilities to make their own choices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
zelda --
"There are no evolutionary changes in psychology, per se. Psychology might respond to evolutionary chages but that's about it."
Baloney. You know this how?
You should also reread my statement about raising kids. I raised mine alone for over thirteen years, worked and had ample time left over for lots of other stuff. Not a full day job.
You can spin what other's are saying all you want, but what you said ain't what they said.
Well, I'm not climbing into the ring about sociobiology vs. evolutionary psychology. Or which one is real and which one is the chiropractics of evolutionary science.
Raising your child was a full day job for someone. I don't know what the laws are in your state but over here they really frown on leaving them home alone all day. I think that's pretty universal but then I don't get out much.
If I worked as a maid or a daycare worker for 8 hours a day that would earn me, in your eyes, a legitimacy that the same work in my home with no paycheck couldn't confer. I just don't place that level of importance upon a paycheck.
zelda --
Fine, you cede you can't support your assertion.
You can't seem to talk straight. No, raising my child was not a full time job for someone. She went to school (Montessori) and then was with me. School was work for the teachers as she was being educated. Her being home was not a job as in work. It was just living with her.
You last para nails it. Being at home for 8hr for anyone, male or female, is not 8hr of work. That is the crux. There is a load of free time unless you're running a business out of your home, which is not the topic.
The spin you're putting on caring for your own children as being a job is baloney. Been there, done that myself. It's not a full time job.
It seems to me that bearing that burden of work, work, work, provide, provide, provide is the price one pays for having a wife who takes care of everything for you. In a more egalitarian marriage, neither spouse faces as much pressure as a breadwinner, but both have to struggle with daily life, i.e. taking care of everything on the home front and at work.
What's not egalitarian about deciding to divvy up responsibilities into "he goes to work and she takes care of the kids?" It's a perfectly workable, reasonable arrangement and doesn't imply any kind of superiority/inferiority on either of our parts, seeing as we both entered into it willingly.
Equating "two-paycheck marriage" with "egalitarian marriage" is a fallacy.
Once upon a time, I too worked instead of just lounging at home in my Juicy track suit, couching and Oprahing and throwing a boob at the occasional baby. Here's your dirty little secret: 8 hours of work at a job isn't 8 hours of work. Who do you think you're kidding?
Interesting that you consider the task of teaching a child to be the province of people who get paid for such honors while the time she spent with you she was merely being kept alive. We are too far apart on the issue to do anything but argue. My children don't go to school, gasp, Montessori or otherwise! That keeps me pretty busy. But, I have to do something before Tyra comes on.
Sounds like bearing got a good education. The kind that teaches logic. Actual logic. Not fingerpainting or self-esteemifying.
darleen: I guess since my mom spent the majority of it a SAHM (then worked and took care of dad when he almost died and took months of recover)
Actually I think most of the men on here would agree that your mother is a great woman. She realized how much effort your dad put into providing for the family and she returned the favor when he no longer was capable. They are angry at the women who get upset or leave when the man is no longer providing the great life they expected.
Been a single parent of a toddler through teenager and I can tell you maintaining a house is not an 8hr a day job, much less all day. Anyone who says it is, is lying through their teeth
Well, then, I guess that depends on your definition of "maintaining a house."
I was a SAHM for 16 years... 4 daughters and managing the household was far more than just "maintaining a house" ... and in ways that allowed my children activities outside of school and allowed my husband to advance his career. I not only "maintained" the house, but did the bookkeeping, taxes, yardwork, household fixes (you'd more like find me at HomeDepot than at any mall), tutoring of children, PTA/Booster/school & community volunteer work (fund raisers, wrote press releases, liason with city officials, etc)
That's just a thumbnail of the stuff I did. Going to a paycheck job is a skate in the park compared to managing a household full time.
Anyone that tells you different is lying through their teeth.
They are angry at the women who get upset or leave when the man is no longer providing the great life they expected.
Then that should be anger at any individual that takes unfair advantage of the other.
How many husbands...after their wives have put their own lives on hold to help hubby in his education/career/business ... dump the first wife so he can live as a swinger and not have to bother with domestic stuff anymore but spend his $$$ he wouldn't have had without first wife on new boobs for trophy 20 something girlfriend and exotic vacations?
Scum knows no gender.
zelda --
When I work at a job, it's work for the full 8hr. Less is slacking. Hmmm.
You understand teaching is the province of teachers? That by no means infers that only they do that activity and I don't.
I taught my child too -- it was fun and not a chore ("job as in work", I said). Being a single parent, I did not have the luxury of deciding to stay home full time with her. You are lucky.
By the way, she just got her Masters in school administration two weeks ago and is currently a HS teacher. Not bad for a single father, eh?
You apparently purposely ignore who the targets of my screeds are (see 8:48PM).
darleen --
Bookkeeping, yard work, taxes, fixes (as well as complete remodel), tutored my child in addition to her schooling, built her elementary school's playground sets, set up and ran a 501C youth group for 12 years -- all without a spouse. Oh, and had a job.
How did I find the time?
Darleen,
People who work full-time jobs (jobs that are capable of supporting a family, i.e. hard jobs) usually look forward to the day they can retire.
People who have those types of jobs usually quit them when they win millions in the lotto.
Now these same people may spend all day at home in their retirement puttering away at things. They may even do some construction work, adding on to their home. They may take pride in gardening or the like. Some are puttering and working all day long in their homes, others are happy reading the newspaper and watching TV.
So what's the big difference? If they're working and puttering at home, how is that different from a full-time job where they're working? Why the big desire to retire or stay at home when they win the lotto?
I think you know what that difference is. Stress is one aspect of it, a big aspect, but not the only issue.
All your arguments about how hard sitting at home is are not really credible. And your diversion to other issues is ... cute.
Most people know what the deal is with career housewives (housewives who have made up their mind that their butt is going to be spread out on the sofa for the rest of their natural life). Most don't say it because they want to be respectful.
I guess the housewives could force their husbands to work overtime (just threaten to cut off sex!) so that the housewives could use the extra money to buy respect, but most housewives seem to be oblivious to the disrespect of others.
Frankly, some of the nastiest, most immature people I have met in my life have been career housewives. I don't understand their husbands at all.
Wouldn't men retiring sooner open up more job slots in the workforce that could be filled by women? Even without a glass ceiling, if men never retire, women won't ever get promoted. And we all know they want to work until they die.
How did I find the time?
What did you give up to find it?
There's doing a job, then there's do a good job.
jg
what the heck is your issue with SAHM's? Envy? Your bigotry and hatred is really off the scale.
Or is it a cover for childhating?
I'll take "Serious Mommy Issues" for 1000, Alex.
I've been thinking about your post for days and I have to admit that I'm a little confused about who these men are who are retiring at age 62. Do they dig ditches? Have they had a life of heavy manual work? Do they hate their jobs?
And what are they going to do after they retire, sit on the couch with the clicker?
I don't know about the 60-65 year old men that you know, but the ones I know are on the top of their game. They are senior partners or high level executives and loving their jobs (and the money and the power). They are entrepreneurs and doing the best deals of their careers...Or they are making films or buying companies or developing property or serving on philanthropic or corporate boards...or creating incredible art.
They are handsome and successful and dating 40 year old women. If you asked them if they were going to retire now they would answer "hell no".
While these men can afford to retire they are nowhere near choosing to get out of the game.
How old is Rupert Murdoch again?
I can read your post a few different ways, Nancy. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Is it:
1. You don't think there are any men age 60-65 who are not high-performing senior partners or executives or the like, except for a few men who dig ditches or do manual labor.
2. There are actually "normal" men who look forward to retiring, but they don't count because they are not high-performing executives and, as a high-class dame, they wouldn't be of any use to you so they don't matter at all.
3. You aren't really that interested in this topic, except as a springboard to use to tell us that you only know high-performing executive men. Because, presumably, you are a high-class dame.
My take on this is dang near identical to the good Doctor's:
Flip the genders of the situation and consider how it'd be viewed. Much like in Marty's recent article.
Nancy: How old is Rupert Murdoch again?
Almost 77. He is a few years older than my grandpa. I would imagine the main issues are: free-time, stress, love of job and health.
Peregrine, thanks for sharing the article.
tether-- that was a nice., polite ass-kicking.
In the face of advice from a female financial expert that is mind-boggling sexist--
the ladies chime in --
to change the subject and talk about themselves.
thats all they ever do.
They have to-- the grotesque sexism is overwhelming,
though " margaret the feminist" engages in tortured "reasoning" to justify it. Of course, being a feminist IS being anti-male,
so her task is not difficult. If it serves women, there is no harm to men and boys too severe that she would not justify. When you only care about women, any small benefit to women is worth any harm to men and boys.
{{Damn, calling oneself a "feminist" is identifying oneself as a member of a hate group, whose "body of work" surpasses anything ever composed in the annals of hate literature.}}
In most women's minds-- when men and women are concerned, women are always right about everything and everything should solely be about them, their needs, and interests. eg they are like especially selfish little children, exclusively concerned with their own wants , needs, and intersts.
Ann Coulter has observed, when women got the vote, they immediately began voting money out of the treasury to serve female self-interest-- eg a massive government bureaucracy that enforces both "equal rights" AND special privileges for women. ( Ann meant the first , I believe). Ann is only mildly joking when she talks about taking the vote away from women-- she is the rare woman who sees the harm women do to our society by their monomanical interest in women-uber-alles.
[[Feminists are at the trough, but so are the 'conservative " women-- these two groups of women care very little about men. They just have different visions of what is good for women and so they have different ways to use men.]]
Off topic ?
the ladies talk about Victoria Secret models,
domestic violence ,
absent fathers,
using women then throwing them away for trophy wives,
absurd lies about no women's restrooms in a Law school in 1975 ( that lie was in " The Women's Room ", shot down by John Gordon), championing SAHMs,
lecturing men about their "resentment" ...
nothing whatever to do with the topic-- BIGOTRY AGAINST MEN.
Women don't care about men being harmed in any way. They just minimize it ,justify it, rationalize it, ignore it, deny it... and change the subject to themselves and blah blah blah about women women women
Their goal-- never allow men to be seen as the victim of anything. Us women have got that cornered. If men are seen as victimized
or as human
or as suffering unfairly,
or suffering at all
hell, money and interest would be diverted from IMPORTANT things-- anything to do with us women and girls..
So no story that depicts men and/or boys as victims of anything is acceptable to women. Men must be seen as powerful oppressors so women can continue to obsess about themselves and all the help they are owed and how men deserve nothing because they are never wronged.
Hence women camp out everywhere -- here, as well--to monitor everything to prevent men's interests and needs and "rights" from being taken seriously .
DAMAGE CONTROL--
mimimize it,
it doesn't count,
stop whining ( this from women !!!),
"yes, but ",
change the subject to women's complaints.
Women are a vicious, relentless special interest group -- actively campaigning to both harm men by their exclusive concern with women and ignore any harm to men. Such groups utilize a grotesque idealization of themselves combined with a demonization of the other. Meet feminism-- gynocentric and misandric.
AGAIN--
The topic was the grotesque anti-male bigotry embodied in the article-- it treats men as if their only role in life is to provide for/serve women.
Here come the girls-- as they always do-
gotta minmimize this somehow
gotta talk about how bad it is for us girls,
got to change the subject,
anything to make sure no harm done to men is ever taken seriously and the world continues safely and totally focused on women, their needs and intersts.
And how come men have to pay for women's financial support after divorce, while she doesn't have to make sure his sexual needs are satisifed after divorce. Apparently , the court doesn't hold up her end of the bargain, at least ordering her to pay for sexual services for her ex-husband consistent with the quality and frequency of sex in their marriage.
oops-- I think sentencing men to that would be cruel and unusual punishmnent...
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行。
==============================================================
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,香蕉按摩棒..情趣用品...香蕉情趣用品..情人節..情趣浪漫..情趣同志..情趣..情趣商品.情趣內衣..成人用品..男同志..女同志..按摩棒,女同按摩棒,,自慰,自衛套,情趣用品,跳蛋,plus28,情趣交友,潤滑液,情趣睡衣,口交,情趣加盟,情趣內睡衣,香蕉性樂園,按摩棒,AV女優,情趣知識,香蕉性樂園,交友聊天室,
情趣,情趣Motel,A片女優,貴婦熟女,找女朋友,日本Tenga,杜蕾絲,香蕉樂園,小巧按摩棒,情趣加盟,性用舖,美女老師,聊天視訊,情趣用具,情趣夜店,情趣用品,情趣香蕉,大亨情趣達人,夜貓子的最愛,DUREX,69的奇妙,成人用品,情趣內衣
環球av情色大網咖臺灣情色網倉井空aaa片俱樂部一劍浣春秋kyo成人動漫avav片av女優travianavastavdvdav美女go2av38ga免費aa片avhello成人電影院javatt1069同志交友網av1688影音娛樂網av博物館一葉情貼圖片區 av127免費av18禁影片go2av免費影
Post a Comment
<< Home