Womenomics--the slow slide to socialism
I read a bit of a new book called Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success,
started to post on it and realized I couldn't stomach it, and dropped it off at my local bookstore for someone more hardy to digest. There were a number of points I wanted to make about it, mainly that the female authors thought it a good thing for women to cut their workweek and just kick back and live the life they wanted. "If everyone decides to do this, what happens to US productivity," I thought, "and why is it that work is seen as distastefull unless one can set their own hours, have free access to childcare and a loving boss?" It's called a JOB, for goodness sakes. But, in the interest of staying calm, I did not blog about these things but I did see that Vox Day had a good post on the book and I will turn it over to him:
I fear that Womenomics is just a buzzword for a slow descent into becoming like France, where the unemployment is high and the vacations are generous. Is this really better?
started to post on it and realized I couldn't stomach it, and dropped it off at my local bookstore for someone more hardy to digest. There were a number of points I wanted to make about it, mainly that the female authors thought it a good thing for women to cut their workweek and just kick back and live the life they wanted. "If everyone decides to do this, what happens to US productivity," I thought, "and why is it that work is seen as distastefull unless one can set their own hours, have free access to childcare and a loving boss?" It's called a JOB, for goodness sakes. But, in the interest of staying calm, I did not blog about these things but I did see that Vox Day had a good post on the book and I will turn it over to him: The problem with this book, I suspect, is that the usual female fascism will likely rear its incoherent but lushly-maned head and demand that everyone do less work so as not to make working women look bad by comparison, thereby transforming what could be a reasonable call for workers to examine their individual priorities into yet another justification for government intervention into the workplace.
I fear that Womenomics is just a buzzword for a slow descent into becoming like France, where the unemployment is high and the vacations are generous. Is this really better?
posted by Helen at 4:51 PM
130 Comments:
I read Vox's article and blogged about this as well.
I am not opposed to flexible schedules, but they shouldn't only be for women, or women with children. And they aren't feasible in many jobs -- like medicine, teaching and so on.
I think that the underlying issue is that women crave the financial independence that having a highly-compensated job gives them (and that certainly applies to both of these authors) -- because this gives them sexual and relationship freedom. That is, the freedom to leave if and when they want to leave -- which is understandable.
But where the disconnect comes in is that they do not want to work the way that men have always worked in these highly-paid careers, seemingly because they are women with children. In other words, it is yet another case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it, too. Feminism is rife with this desire -- the desire to avoid compromise and "have it all".
There is no reason that people who work less than their colleagues should be paid more unless there is a substantial productivity difference, and even there, if someone is so productive, wouldn't they be even *more* productive if they were working as much as their colleagues?
I suspect where this is all going will be calls for mandatory flex time and work from home privileges for mothers, without any pay differential being permitted for that arrangement. I suspect that this is better than limiting overall work hours a la France, or implementing gender-based advancement quotas. But it still isn't terribly fair to men and women who do not have kids.
Here's another barfer ...
Women Become the Majority of Workers
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/04/prweb2366294.htm
Since women don't marry down, who are these uber women going to marry?
Chuckles ....
Just what America needs: a movement advocating lower productivity.
As if we weren't uncompetitive enough already.
Just what America needs........
It is my view that what Obama is doing will create that scenario exactly - lower productivity - and all the other "lower" that comes with it. Except debt.
I can't wait to see what the pay czar position is all about.
Vox Popoli quotes Spacebunny regarding women demanding fewer work hours and more family friendly jobs. I have no problems with this as long as they meet the conditions VP states: "...so long as they do so in the full knowledge that they will receive lower pay and fewer promotions than those who are willing to put in more time and work harder." I'll add that the same "opportunities" are open to men.
The company where I work has "non-traditional" work schedules. Some how these only seem to be available to women. During the ten years I've worked there one man had a non-traditional schedule in which he worked 38 hours a week. I think he left early on Friday.
Of the 200 something full-time employees about 25-30 women have schedules that allow working from home full-time or working from home 2-3 days a week and in the office the other days. Leaving early to pick up kids from school, etc. Several women have moved out of town to follow their husbands jobs but allowed to continue to work via telecommuting although some of them are far from competent.
A few men, myself included, have requested similar schedules and been told a flat "No." If I didn't need the financial security, I'd complain to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or whatever it's called).
Dadvocate --
Same thing in my large Fortune 200 employer. Flex stuff is mother only. I expect that where we are going is for this to be mandated.
"A few men, myself included, have requested similar schedules and been told a flat 'No.' If I didn't need the financial security, I'd complain to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or whatever it's called)."
DADvocate, what you are describing is illegal. Is there not some way that you can report this without risking your job? It's possible that the EEOC wouldn't be vigorous in supporting you, but you won't know if you don't try.
The first women who complained about illegal pay discrimination and sexual harassment were not universally successful. Persistence is key.
I can see some women taking the advice, then cutting back on hours. They will get paid less due to less work, then demand equal pay. After all, if a man on average makes $100,000 and the women makes $80,000, it's discrimination, regardless of the fact that he averages 50 hours per week and see averages 40 (for those who voted for Obama, that is an average of $20,000 for every 10 hours worked per week for both).
Of course, if men are paid less, regardless of the work ratio, they should "man up."
Laura,
Why don't you just file a complaint on his behalf?
The fact that you're obviously not a lawyer - although you are giving legal advice - is evident, but as long as you're dishing out your aggressive opinion on everything, you may as well go full tilt.
If someone tries to hassle you because you don't have a law license, just tell the crummy cop to keep his mitts off you, or you are going to scream rape.
If women want to work less - or just quit entirely and take on far more work as a homemaker - then men should be more than willing to pick up the slack. As a homemaker, she is doing the most important job in the world - and the hardest job in the world - you should shut your mouth and work as hard as you can. You are not worthy.
Not to mention a specific post - you can guess yourself - but what ever happend to husbands and wives being teams, working together to make sure the home and life is both paid for and cared for properly?
There was a review of this book in the last issue of BusinessWeek. I started to read it, but couldn't get past the first chapter.
To me this is ridiculous. My mother works constantly, and I mean constantly. She's up at 5:00, on the computer by 6:00 and works all day until 8:00, when supper is ready. She does this every day, all week, all year long, and only takes maybe one weekend off to go visit her sister in Houston.
She's been doing this for decades. That's why she makes six figures, owns her own company, and is one of the most respected real estate brokers in the state. She's certainly the most respected businesswoman for hundreds of miles.
"The first women who complained about illegal pay discrimination and sexual harassment were not universally successful. Persistence is key."
Yeah and look how well that turned out. Now you look at a woman sideways and its sexual harassment.
"Not to mention a specific post - you can guess yourself - but what ever happend to husbands and wives being teams, working together to make sure the home and life is both paid for and cared for properly?"
-----------
Aside from taking care of small children, most of the labor in the home has been supplanted by technology, mass production etc.
So I think this "husbands and wives being teams, working together ..." (and you mean in the sense of princess sitting home) can be likened to the team of the horse and the carriage driver.
Each does his part: The horse pulls the carriage and the carriage driver rides in it.
"Yeah and look how well that turned out. Now you look at a woman sideways and its sexual harassment."
-------------
Or not even look at her sideways.
I was in a group of men sharing a secretary in the mid-1990s. I had very little contact with her, and it was all professional.
She got fired by upper management, not by us, but she sued the company and each of us individually for sexual harassment. In the first deposition, the female lawyer for the company pointed out so many contradictions that her lawyer just gave up and dropped the case.
It is still offensive to watch someone simply make stuff up - and not get penalized for it - and it is also scary to get sued for a ton of money, even if it does get dropped at the first deposition.
What is also a bit scary (as I have seen) is that good false accusers are good because they pick something out that would seem plausible and would seem to fit with the personality of the person being accused. She had different allegations tailor made to each man's personality or age. Almost frightening, and I certainly don't have 100% confidence that the justice system always sorts things out correctly.
"I fear that Womenomics is just a buzzword for a slow descent into becoming like France, where the unemployment is high and the vacations are generous. Is this really better?"
This is a subject on which there's no correct answer, except "Fine for them as likes it."
A dear, departed friend of mine once said this to me: "Work is good, but it's not everything. After a while, you realize it's time to relax and enjoy your lingerie." She was a go-getter's go-getter, the sort of hard-driving overachiever that made those around her nervous about their upcoming performance reviews...and she was dead and gone, at age 49, less than two years after she made that statement.
Some people would reflexively say it was her job that was keeping her alive. Others would counter that her job was probably what had killed her, and that she left it just in time to have a few months' peace. I have no opinion on the matter...except to say that life is precious, and every instant of it should be spent doing whatever is most important to you.
Americans value work, productivity, and occupational achievement rather more highly than Europeans. We look down on our Old World cousins for their insouciance and willingness to have another cafe au lait, or two or three, before returning to the office. But they think we're overly driven, that we're allowing our lives to bleed away in pursuit of occupational advancement and financial accumulation.
Each of us is correct, from his own perspective. When it comes to the valuation of one's time and energy, one's personal perspective is all that matters.
I'm getting rather old and weary, myself. Not so weary that the notion of becoming economically inert actually appeals to me, but I can see the attractions of a life in which no one much cares where I am or what I'm doing at any moment. No, one mustn't legislate such a condition onto others, but how could anyone condemn the free choice of that path for oneself?
...well we managed to get a hit in on just abut all things: France, Obama, men in the workplace, long hours, inadequate compensation, feminism, etc etc but forgot to badmouth The Unions!
So DADvocate shouldn't go to the EEOC, because other people fake their complaints?
We're already there, folks. Just work for any large corporation making lawsuit driven policy and you'll find all kinds of exceptions made (both on and under the table) to accommodate women who earn the same pay as men for sometimes far less work. It's actually a form of patronization (can't expect the little woman to pull the same workload, especially if *gasp* she's a "single mom").
I'm not saying that every employed woman has a poor work ethic or expects special treatment, but some corporate cultures encourage such behavior and have done so for years.
Getting the same accommodations for men, however, is something I don't see happening until we are further along the current paradigm shift.
I wonder if there will always be people driven to create, work, and produce in spite of the government's intervention. I hope so.
For the last 10 years of my life I have seen a change in the corporate culture. I have worked in two seperate industries that both involved working with other companies heavily.
With female employees in all companies all across the nation it is always the same... exact... story.. when you are trying to call them.. "'She' isn't in today and she won't be back until next week." "'She' just left for the day." (At all hours of the day). "'She' is on vacation, 'she' took a leave of absense, 'she' won't be in until this afternoon, 'she' is just.. gone. For whatever reason, women are always just gone from work- everyone knows this, but pretends the emperor is wearing clothes.
Women in the workplace is a joke, but worse are fraud. I hear women blathering on constantly about their title at a company, but it is a rare woman indeed that actually speaks of any passion for any actual field of work.
Yes, there are women who will work all day, but this only in the most menial jobs such as retail, waiting tables etc., because they are forced to be there and of course a woman needs constant supervision to actually work.
But in any job position that is above hourly pay, what women have done essentially is they have made a silent exodus from the workplace. And you know what I say? Thank God! What a relief! Women in the office make everyone miserable including other women and they are not just unproductive when they are there- they are actually counterproductive.
Everything in a company runs far smoother without the 'dampening' effect women have on productivity and there have been some research studies that prove this (but have been removed from the web of course).
Like everything else with women, nothing is ever what it seems - no substance- just an empty lie. Of course we just all keep pretending that women actually work (ha ha what knee slapper) this is all so they can be 'independent' ..of who? Men.
And women are more miserable and sour than ever- I would be too if I was living a lie and a joke.
Everything depends on the people involved. Two best managers I ever worked for were women. Great gals and we're still friendly acquaintances some ten years after the jobs - both of them. Two worst managers were men, always lying and taking credit for other's work.
That said, the one I worked for as a consultant refused to hire women contractors. Hated them with a passion. Said they caused way too much strife.
Have to say, I'm mixed, but lean toward her assessment.
There were a number of points I wanted to make about it, mainly that the female authors thought it a good thing for women to cut their workweek and just kick back and live the life they wanted. "If everyone decides to do this, what happens to US productivity," I thought.
Not to upset anyone, since the book obviously offended some people, but is the book really advocating everyone doing this? And even if it is, that just amounts to allocating resources differently. If people working 60-hour weeks can purchase half that time by bartering the igadgets and 48-inch TV screens they would have bought instead, why should we question that decision? And if society sacrifices for leisure the part of its national income formerly dedicated to similar luxuries, why would that matter?
So DADvocate shouldn't go to the EEOC, because other people fake their complaints?
No, because if his complaint isn't dismissed outright, it will be turned against him, because despite any claim of confidentialtry his name will be leaked, and he will be fired, his name smeared, blacklisted and womanists and their male chivalrist suck-up allies will dig for dirt and harass their families ...
...And the extent of support from people like yourself will be "Keep on fighting that good fight! We're pulling for ya!" While you oh-so-enlightenly "struggle" to find balance and moderation (Read: Wishy-washyness) in any public support for him, damning him with faint praise to look all intellectually "moderate," while accusing anyone who voices support for him in any meaningful way as being "hateful" and "intemperate" and "bitter" against women.
"While you oh-so-enlightenly "struggle" to find balance and moderation (Read: Wishy-washyness) in any public support for him, damning him with faint praise to look all intellectually "moderate," while accusing anyone who voices support for him in any meaningful way as being "hateful" and "intemperate" and "bitter" against women."
I think you have me confused with someone else.
Olig wrote: "Everything depends on the people involved."
Amen.
Laura wrote: "I think you have me confused with someone else."
There seems to be a lot of that going around lately.
Trey
I don't think I have confused you with anyone else at all, Laura. Let any man come in and tell his story, and you turn yourself inside out to try to poke holes in it, ask him what he id to provoke it, call him bitter, question his manhood, etc.
Everything but take him at face value.
However, you don't seem to do that with the women who come in here.
"Everything depends on the people involved. Two best managers I ever worked for were women. Great gals and we're still friendly acquaintances some ten years after the jobs - both of them. Two worst managers were men, always lying and taking credit for other's work."
Yes, it does depend on the people involved - whether these people are men or women. That's the discussion we're having here.
I noticed you pointed out that these women were the best and that these male managers always lied and took credit for work they didn't do, but what you failed to mention is how often these women were actually at work.
And although these male managers may have been dishonest, I will bet $1000 that 98% of the work was done by men in these companies while also having to so the work of the women who never show up.
As men and women, we have no common ground because we have vastly different values and now even our own seperate cultures and these differences extend into the workplace. Men are raised to believe that you get what give and work for what you earn and are proactive. We have values and integrity and learn from our mistakes and whether we are good or bad people we fall on one side of the fence or the other - either rewarded for hard work or punished for wrong doing.
Women on the other hand laugh at concepts such as integrity and are never held accountable so therefore have no working understanding of the concept of accountability and live in a grey, amoral world of quasi-virtue and half-hearted gestures. Women are raised to be reactive, always looking for the next handout, playing the victim, looking for privleges, always trying to figure some genius way of tricking the system- anything but an honest day's work.
There was an article recentlyt (few months ago) in the Daily Mail (UK) by a woman television producer who left the mainstream industry to start a production company -- women only. She was trying to escape the "sexism" of the mainstream TV production industry.
Well ... she found that trying to manage a group of women in the office was horrific. She detailed the backstabbing, the lack of respect, the lack of work ethic and on and on and on. She regretted her decision and after ten years closed the company. She says that if she ever were to try again she would not hire women (and this is a woman who is, or was, quite the feminist before she tried this experiment).
Quite an eye-opening article.
"And while I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees - because they have an easy ride in TV - if I were to do it again, I'd definitely employ men. In fact, I'd probably employ only men."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
"Let any man come in and tell his story, and you turn yourself inside out to try to poke holes in it, ask him what he id to provoke it, call him bitter, question his manhood, etc."
Give and example please.
Trey
"Give and example please."
99% of all women do that. Look on any message boards on the internet where there are men and women discussing any topic. There's about 25 million threads.
Novaseeker,
My only problem with that story is that the production company even functioned for 6 months, let alone 10 years! That's the only part of the story I don't beleive.
Give and example please.
The entire last thread on this subject.
Here's another good one from "From Patriarch to Patsy"
Commenter:
"The treatment of husbands as household help--and not very nicely treated household help at that--is an example."
Laura:
If a man says he is treated as household help, what does that mean exactly? That his wife asks him to do housework? Is it that she's asking him to do more than his fair share? Or is it that she has to ask to get him to do anything, and he could change the way he is "being treated" by not waiting to be asked before he does his share?
Anything else I can help you out with, Trey? Any other example of a man making the complaint, and Laura giving him the third degree, minimizing his complaints, and suggesting his complaint is actually his fault and the woman is right after all? Of siding with Jane Random Generic Woman and not taking his statement at face value?
So take your passive aggressive "cite please" attitude and stick it in your ear. You stand corrected. You and Laura both.
Thanks for citing though I completely fail to see what about asking for an example is passive aggressive. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"If a man says he is treated as household help, what does that mean exactly?"
This is a simple question.
"That his wife asks him to do housework?"
Another simple question. It is easy to answer, but the guys who like to call people names on the blog are loathe to answer questions. Whw? Oops, sorry, I asked a question.
"Is it that she's asking him to do more than his fair share? Or is it that she has to ask to get him to do anything, and he could change the way he is "being treated" by not waiting to be asked before he does his share?"
This is a completely valid question. One of the scenarios is unfair, the other is someone who is having trouble shifting roles.
If my working wife complains that I am not doing my share of housework when I am not doing my fair share this is a valid complaint. Is it not?
I can be honest and say that I have to be asked to do housework all the time. I read that JG does not, more power to him! Is it insulting to ask how much of being tired of being treated like the hired help is not liking to do housework.
It is a fair question. I do not think it is germain, but it is an honest question. You guys prefer to jump on her for asking it, I took a stab at answering it.
Trey
It's not a simple or honest question because Laura knows exactly what it is. Just like she knows exactly what shaming language is. But on this blog people go round and round trying to explain things to her or excuse her actions.
"But on this blog people go round and round trying to explain things to her or excuse her actions."
---------------
"People" don't really do that, but TMink and a few others do. Passive aggressive twits.
It's passive aggressive because the whole "Cite please" - when such infromation is readily available, by, say, just reviewing back threads at a site you are at - is fishing for a "Well, didn't come up with it so "Dismiss!"" excuse.
Sorry to disappoint.
A litany of questions like that, in one post, is what we call a "Veiled accusation."
"What? What do you mean treated badly in a specific way - redefine this and repeat yourself, please. Are you sure it isn't your fault this way? Are you sure that it isn't your fault that way? Are you sure it isn't your fault the other way? What about your fault in this manner?"
Or we could do it in this manner:
Woman:
My Husband left me for his younger secretary!
Man:
What Do you mean "left you?" Did you drive him away? Are you sure you didn't get fat? Are you sure you didn't cut him off of sex? Did you cheat on him first? How did you contribute to the breakdown of your marriage?
Look at the 135-comment trainwreck below this one, where I ask how come men can't do for prostate cancer what the Susan G. Komen foundation has done for breast cancer, and see where Rob accuses me of actively stopping men from doing something about their health; and then come back and tell me that I don't need to ask for cites.
Trey: "Is it insulting to ask how much of being tired of being treated like the hired help is not liking to do housework." Evidently. Yes, Roane, I know exactly what it is because I read the article. The man resents having to do "menial" tasks "that his own father was barely aware of" and resents having to shuttle his kids around instead of dispensing wisdom like Judge Hardy or somebody while his wife does the grunt work. Oh, I get it all right.
Nova, I saw that article. The woman started out with a bunch of sexist baggage (the excluding men b/c they have it so easy crap) so I wasn't surprised she had a problem.
Gosh, women have no integrity and,according to the low-rise jeans post, they're mostly whores.
Where's the outrage?
Josh, you're at the wrong blog. Mature, reasoned discussion is not appreciated here.
Oh, hit it on the nose, and little miss rational shows her true colors.
How about more like, AFter Princess decides unilaterally she wants to be a homemaker, a man who keeps his job, and probably works overtime, and maybe even works a second job - to pick up the slack - and then has to do all the time consuming, dirty, labor intensive and dangerous tasks as "Man's Work" resents being asked to - keep the home? Like she said she wanted to do? And then when he does, gets ragged with shit like "Yeah, I know you spent six hours tending the washer and dryer but you folded the washcloths different from how I do, so none of it counts because I HAD TO DO IT ALL OVER!"
Of course, Laura wonders how the hell a man could resent this, because *she* never does this, (or so she claims) so such things must NEVER EVER happen ANYWHERE at all in the world.
Must be just men's fault.
So get off your high horse, missy. You claimed you never did shit like that, and got busted doing it, and not too long ago, at that.
The man resents having to do "menial" tasks "that his own father was barely aware of" and resents having to shuttle his kids around instead of dispensing wisdom like Judge Hardy or somebody while his wife does the grunt work.
And there's another lie and strawman. What he resents is getting nothing for it, of turning over all that used to mean being "dad" to becomethe Junior Assistant Mom.
But why let a little reality get in the way of your womanist narrative? At least, why start now?
Josh, you're at the wrong blog. Mature, reasoned discussion is not appreciated here.
Sure it is. Meet us halfway and provide some, m'kay? Instead of joining the Passive Aggressive Twit chorus? I know it's hard, but give it a go, eh wot?
"And there's another lie and strawman."
No, it's a direct quote from the article. Did you read it?
Here's an excerpt from the book, of which the article is a review:
"Five months pregnant with our first child, Tabitha pointed out that the feeling of being weighed down by adulthood wasn't likely to improve anytime soon. Parenthood loomed. There was a time when I suspected this wouldn't have much effect on me. I figured that the chemical rush that attended new motherhood might get me off the hook—that Tabitha would happily embrace all the new unpleasant chores and I'd stop in from time to time to offer advice. She'd do the play-by-play; I'd do the color commentary. Five months into the pregnancy that illusion had been pretty well shattered by the anecdotal evidence. One friend with a truly amazing gift for getting out of things he did not want to do wrote to describe his own experience of fatherhood. 'Remember that life you thought you had?' he wrote. 'Guess what. It's not yours anymore.'"
Here.
Gee, imagine that. Expecting someone who is staying home to "be a mom" aand not otherwise contributing in ways like working for a living to do most of the work.
The bastard.
Ony way he could have been a bigger bastard would probably been to have said "soon as you're done recovering, back to work."
If you're looking for sympathy, check the dictionary between shit and syphilis. Choosing to stay home to "be the primary caregiver" (A choice courts always do spit takes at when informed a mere male has "chosen" to make) means just that - That becomes YOUR job, just like bringing home the bacon, with no help from you, becomes his.
IOW, hy does he get to sleep through the night and you have to get up when Junior cries? Because HE has to get up in the fucking morning and GO TO WORK.
He suld resent it, he should resent you, and men should have started resenting it decades ago.
"One friend with a truly amazing gift for getting out of things he did not want to do"
If you are defending this, Pete, I think I've made my point.
The note that France has a very high unemployment rate would be ok were it not a rate that is very close to that of the U.S.!
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/03/us_unemployment_higher_than_in_france
mark hays --
"I noticed you pointed out that these women were the best and that these male managers always lied and took credit for work they didn't do, but what you failed to mention is how often these women were actually at work."
They worked full time, worked hard at it and did the job well. The men, however, golfed and brown nosed and were generally seen as worthless. Also, being at the office is no indication that you're doing your job.
Answer your question?
You're my hero, Oligonicella, the way you even go out of your way to make stuff up to defend women.
I want to save helpless women just like you when I grow up.
You are right, Olig, if you go into any office there will be a percentage of people who are trying to get out of doing any work. Some claim to have child care issues, some have hangovers from the bender the night before. Some are planning their next scuba diving soiree with one of the customers (aka best friend), some are busy "networking" at a business marketing golf event meet&greet and some are beating off to porn on computers in their tiny office in the company basement (aka help desk). My life has been made substantially better by only working for small companies. Yes, small companies have these types, but the slackers are identified much quicker than in a large company and middle management such as myself can be instrumental in terminating their tenure as soon as possible. Life can be good.
Can it with the shaming language, Laura. You're full of shit. Cherry picking a single line out of an excerpt from a book to make a thesis is neither original or clever. I could go on about a "Quote from the Bible itself" proves there is no God until I ran into someone who actually read the damn thing - and would probably be a fellow atheist putting it in context.
You're transparent as all hell; women like you are a dime a dozen, and you seem to roam the internet waiting for some man to make a complaint, then you jump in with random ancedotes attempting to get someone shitty with you so you can claim that they are all angry and bitter at women.
No, Laura, just disgusted with you.
It is now twenty to nine where I sit, and I was up at seven A.M.; I made coffee, read the local paper, and a little after 8 went off to get the city paper. On my ay back, what do I see? Men, at the earliest hour available, hard at work on a sunday. Fixing cars. Remodelling. Yard work. Cleaning garages. On their way to overtime.
The whole notion that men don't do their share is plain bullshit; despite a few ancedotal instances the typical model is a man who works a full time job, with overtime, with a commute, with the associated get up early to make his on lunch, shave shower & shit, and so forth. With this he has a wife who may work a low-wage part time job while the kids are at school.
This means something, and what it means in a practical sense is that if she loses her job, there may be some belt tightening. If HE loses his job, it may be a disaster. The husband is carrying the load for providing, and chances are that of the sixteen aking hours he should have, 3/4 of it is involved in some demanding labor, which is often dirty, dangerous, and otherwise unpleasant.
Now before you shoot off more ancedotes, I spent a year, when my son was still in diapers, being the one at home due to an accident I had to recover from. Even in a cast, brace, on crutches, and with a cane - it wasn't that hard. I spent fifteen to twenty hours a week - maybe - keeping the house in such order my old drill instructor could have found no fault. Laundry. Vacuuming. Cleaning. Washing dishes. Making beds. Trash detail. Cooking. Grocery. A few hours a month paying bills and etc. Not that hard.
Caring for the kid - also not that hard.
Of course, fault was found at every step, and even though the claim was made that "I did it wrong" the reality as that I "did it different." The root of it was that I discovered what with labor saving technology like - say - dishwashers, not to mention grandparents eager to spend some one on one time, play dates (Read: We'll co-op afternoon babysitting so out of the five of us, we each get four afternoons off to do as we please)the hole notion of "Home-maker" and "child care" is a scam.
Let me repeat it again so it is not misunderstood - give a choice between keeping a house clean, which is easy once it is clean, and caring for a healthy child, which is true in all but a miniscule fraction of cases; versus getting up at 5:30 in the morning to go paint houses for as long as the light will hold, or some other demanding and intensive labor, guess which one I would pick?
And I cared for to teens later as a single father for half a decade while being the sole proprietor of a business with an 8 figure cash flow per annum - again, while not the easiest thing in the world, guess which side of that equation left me more frazzled? And the most aggravating thing about being a single father wasn't the kids, it was the active attempts to sabotage me and people wanting me to fail - schools, social workers, etc - that made me grind my teeth.
And this is including a teen daughter with ... issues.
So, I've walked the proverbial mile - and then quite a few more - in the female moccasin. So kindly go peddle your horsecrap elsewhere.
So what we have - on the one side - is a home-maker by choice who could sleep in and stil be done with any real labor by lunch, and a breadwinner who probably doesn't get hone till dusk, let alone cleaned up and changed - and doing the heavy lifting chores (Trash out, this fixed, that barge toted and bale lifted, and so on). We have on one side someone who has hours of free time daily, as opposed to someone who might have a couple at night - maybe - and is going to have a honey-do list that will take up most the weekend.
On top of this, every time I hear some oman talk about how she shouldquit her job to "be a homemaker and care-giver" one of the biggest claims that is made is ho she is going to "do all this work" so he can concentrate on bringing home the bacon. In dividing the labor. "I can devote my time to getting all of this done so we both aren't scrambling around all evening with no time for ourselves."
So yes, when a guy has a gift for getting out of things he doessn't want to do, I'm going to be cheering him on, because chances are, those things he doesn't want to do falls under "We're going to make a deal to split the labor, then I am going to expect you to hold up your end of the split and half of mine."
Like I said, been on the other side. And all your ancedotes aside, the amount of people with serious trouble are a small minority, and the amount of women under that with a truly unsupportive husbands are a tiny percentage of that. And your little distractive vignettes - even if true - are not even close to being representative of what goes on in real life with real people. They are fringe and outlying snapshots, cherry picked, ad out of context.
Try to peddle it to people who haven't lived the life.
Pete, so every man is like you and every woman is like your ex.
Got it.
I don't think we need to keep on about this b/c it's not constructive.
Your point is that no man ever wants to get out of doing housework he reasonably should do, ever.
My point is that men who complain about being treated like the help sometimes have a valid complaint and sometimes don't.
These views are not compatible and neither of us will budge, so after I observe how silly it is for you to use the ugly language you have used to me and then accuse me of shaming, I will let you have the last word.
Pete:
I would respectfully suggest that it is YOU (and tether and mark hays) who needs to meet my friends maturity and reason half way.
If you think all women are whores who have no integrity (and that is pretty much what you all have said, without a peep from the blog author), then I've no interest in showing you down that path.
I strongly suspect your point of view has a deleterious impact on your personal happiness and relationships with women. That is no business or concern of mine. I will simply say that my lover and I have no issues related to this gender bullshit and further, that I get along fabulously with men--without making broad, sweeping, childish statements about men OR, I might add, tolerating a bunch of trash about women either. I wish you and helen could get there too. But that's your privilege.
Cut It:
Sorry, but you really sound like you're reading straight from the feminist playbook.
Your clipped, passive aggressive approach from above is hard to read.
OF COURSE you are going to say you get along FABULOUSLY with your partner and there are NO problems at all. OF COURSE you are going to insinuate that someone saying something you don't like probably has problems. I think a 5-year-old kid could develop that strategy.
And I talk about the feminist playbook because feminists are used to being able to employ the silliest ad hominem arguments - like you are doing - and getting away with it.
And you even grant privileges at the end!
If Cut It's rejection of broad, sweeping statements about the wretchedness of half the human race is straight out of the feminists' handbook then I have to wonder how civilized thinking even developed before the feminists came along.
I don't think it is. I think it is straight out of the mature human's handbook.
I'm sure that statement would get whooping cheers on Oprah, Laura, but Cut It is simply objecting to remarks that a few other posters have made about male/female relations and the value of certain roles. It's not about the wretchedness of half the human race.
But you know that, don't you darlin'.
I can absolutely see that you don't want to be upfront or honest with people, so I'm done attempting to be that way with you.
There are a few women here who simply don't want any examination of some of the bad behavior of women. Period. Men certainly behave badly in lots of ways, but an examination of some of the particular behaviors that women engage in is going to be shut down. Shaming, intentional denseness, ad hominem and indirect appeals to chivalry (and claims of misogyny) are going to be used to shut that down.
"They worked full time, worked hard at it and did the job well. The men, however, golfed and brown nosed and were generally seen as worthless. Also, being at the office is no indication that you're doing your job.
Answer your question?"
Yes, it does. And it also answered another question I had for you but didn't ask: Are you a liar?
I've never even heard of an office or corporation where the women did all the actual work and were always there 40 hours a week every week, and I have had more years in the corporate environment than all of you put together (I can tell) and have worked with countless other companies over the years through the companies I was actually working for at that time.
No, you're correct.. being at the office is no indication that you are doing your job, i.e productive.
But when you're not there that is definately an indication you're not doing you're job. But I guess that's just way too complicated for you to understand.
And if you actually think women are showing up and working full time and carrying the company anywhere at any time you're just ignorant, an idiot or a liar or all the above. (Or pretending to be an idiot because no one can possibly be that stupid).
"I'm sure that statement would get whooping cheers on Oprah"
Again with Oprah. That's your favorite show, isn't it?
You deny that there are broad, sweeping statements made here about the wretchedness of women and then RIGHT AFTER THAT it's "the particular behaviors that women engage in" and the same old list. Disconnect much?
I hope you realize how your and others' continued allegation of "shaming" as being something women do is becoming a joke, since it so perfectly describes what you all do all the time.
I worked more than a female colleague with small children who was over two hours late to work every day...even when I was going through chemotherapy I worked more than she did.
She had the equivalent of a day off each week, and she didn't have to turn in the time for it. It increased the burden on the rest of us (child-free) employees in the department. And she still took her full number of vacation days each year.
I don't know why anyone employs anybody who has primary caretaking responsibilities for small children...whether they're male or female. Make up your mind what you want to do and do it. You can't have it all because it's a burden to the rest of us when you shirk your job duties.
And don't penalize me either, when I work hard and efficiently and get my job done during regular office hours. I'm not going to stick around an extra twenty hours a week to make face time doing nothing because of someone else's sick idea of loyalty. Don't waste my time.
And I've had those slacker male manager types that duck out of the office and have no accountability for their whereabouts and they're out goofing off. At least people tending children have a better excuse for their shirking.
I would respectfully suggest that it is YOU (and tether and mark hays) who needs to meet my friends maturity and reason half way.
Sock Puppet:
Why don't you have a hot cup of Shut The Fuck Up?
If you think all women are whores who have no integrity (and that is pretty much what you all have said, without a peep from the blog author), then I've no interest in showing you down that path.
To quote yourself, Laura, cite please. Show me where I have said "All" women.
Or you stand with a unfounded assertion.
I strongly suspect your point of view has a deleterious impact on your personal happiness and relationships with women.
And you'd be so wrong it is laughable. I became deliriously happy after I stopped letting omen define my manhood for me, or putting up with stupid shit from them.
Now, even though I still attract such women from time to time, they are no longer an anchor on my ass.
That is no business or concern of mine.
Well, I guess even a blind squirrel can find a nut every no and again.
I will simply say that my lover and I have no issues related to this gender bullshit and further, that I get along fabulously with men--without making broad, sweeping, childish statements about men OR, I might add, tolerating a bunch of trash about women either.
Well, isn't that just fucking special for you?
I wish you and helen could get there too. But that's your privilege.
Got news, Laura. Helen isn't anti female. She just doesn't tell men, "Shut up, man up, and take care of the women FIRST. The poor dears have it so much harder. WHAT ABOUT TEH WIMMENZ?!?!?!?!?!"
In short, kiss my ass.
"If you think all women are whores who have no integrity (and that is pretty much what you all have said, without a peep from the blog author), then I've no interest in showing you down that path.
To quote yourself, Laura, cite please. Show me where I have said 'All' women."
Now I understand all the weird accusations you have made against me. When you accuse me of saying things and I am honestly bewildered. You cannot believe that there could be more than one woman who has the absolute nerve to disagree with you, can you? And so you accuse me of using words like "bitter" which I have NEVER used.
Let me tell you something, buddy. I do not do sock puppets. Perhaps you do. I don't. My name is above every single comment I have ever generated. If it crashes your world that there could be two females out there that have the unmitigated gall not to defer to your every word, then get over it.
Pete, so every man is like you and every woman is like your ex.
Got it.
Jane, you ignorant slut - no you don't.
I don't think we need to keep on about this b/c it's not constructive.
Oh, dearie me, the mean ol' manz isn't tweating me wif kid gwoves! *flounce* *sniff*
Your point is that no man ever wants to get out of doing housework he reasonably should do, ever.
Strawman. Bad Troll. No biscuit.
My point is that men who complain about being treated like the help sometimes have a valid complaint and sometimes don't.
Really? And that is why in the quote I pulled from your post, you gave the third degree to him with suggestions only that it as "THE MENZES" fault, and not the slightest credit here they might have a point.
Suuuuuuuuuuure ya do....
These views are not compatible and neither of us will budge, so after I observe how silly it is for you to use the ugly language you have used to me and then accuse me of shaming, I will let you have the last word.
Oh, the irony... Climb down off your cross.
I'm sick to death of women like you who think they can get in someone's face and wag their sanctiomious and self righteous finger at them and then hide behind their skirts if someone wants to thump a finger back in their face.
Allright, so you ain't got nothing but a few ancedotes, and most of them of the form of "My best friend's husband's second cousin's neighbor once ..." Well, we already knew that.
Sorry you chose to get in a snit because you got called on it.
Are you backing off the sock puppet accusation?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Now I understand all the weird accusations you have made against me. When you accuse me of saying things and I am honestly bewildered.
Poor me! Will no knight in shining armor come and defend my honor?
You cannot believe that there could be more than one woman who has the absolute nerve to disagree with you, can you?
Ah, the "You're just afraid of strong women" gambit, variant 3, to wit: You just can't stand women who disagree with you.
Old. Tired. Hoary.
And so you accuse me of using words like "bitter" which I have NEVER used.
"Women like you."
Helps to read carefully, then you don't look like you're an idiot or trying to knock down men of straw.
Let me tell you something, buddy.
Oooh. "Buddy." I'm intimidated.
I do not do sock puppets. Perhaps you do. I don't. My name is above every single comment I have ever generated. If it crashes your world that there could be two females out there that have the unmitigated gall not to defer to your every word, then get over it.
From "Cut it"
I would respectfully suggest that it is YOU (and tether and mark hays) who needs to meet my friends maturity and reason half way.
Sock puppets don't have to be a different account, their intent is to astroturf and try to shut someone down with the fallacy of numbers.
You can sock puppet by calling on your minions to "come defend your honor."
And if you think I ain't happy as a pig in shit standing alone against a confederation of dunces....
Guess not.
Okay, Pete, I hate to take a gun to a knife fight, but here goes.
"My point is that men who complain about being treated like the help sometimes have a valid complaint and sometimes don't.
Really? And that is why in the quote I pulled from your post, you gave the third degree to him with suggestions only that it as 'THE MENZES' fault, and not the slightest credit here they might have a point."
Here is the quote you pulled from my post:
"If a man says he is treated as household help, what does that mean exactly? That his wife asks him to do housework? Is it that she's asking him to do more than his fair share? Or is it that she has to ask to get him to do anything, and he could change the way he is 'being treated' by not waiting to be asked before he does his share?"
Let me direct your attention to the third sentence of this quote.
Is it that she's asking him to do more than his fair share?
Is your reading comprehension so poor that you can directly quote this, and then say that I give "not the slightest credit here they might have a point"?
Are you backing off the sock puppet accusation?
Fuck no. Call all your friends up and have them come here and call me stupid shit and talk about how wonderful and kind and generous and reasonable you are, and what a mean ol' woman hating bastard I am.
I don't give a damn.
Pete. Really.
Look at your comment of 12:44 PM, June 07, 2009. Don't now claim that you weren't saying that Cut It is my sock puppet, i.e., my words under a different name.
Is your reading comprehension so poor that you can directly quote this, and then say that I give "not the slightest credit here they might have a point"?
Context is everything.
When you machine gun a bunch of questions at someeone which insinuate his complaints are invalid, the subtext is "Is she REALLY askinghim to do more than his fair share?"
Cherry-picking one out of it, out of context, as an attempt to provide some plausible deniability is transparent.
Sorry. Doesn't wash. I'm familiar with rhetorical tricks.
Pete. Really.
Look at your comment of 12:44 PM, June 07, 2009. Don't now claim that you weren't saying that Cut It is my sock puppet, i.e., my words under a different name.
I'm claiming - by her own admission - "my friend" - you're having someone come over to try and take your side.
Same thing, only different.
Sock puppet. Your argument, her - its - mouth.
"I wish you and helen could get there too. But that's your privilege.
Got news, Laura."
Liar. I am calling you out.
I don't know why you're wasting your time with her, Pete. You can't 'call her out' because she doesn't have any integrity to begin with. She's made that abundently clear.
Your words, her mouth. Hired spokesthings are sock puppets too; if you want to be specific, it's the "Astroturfer" subtype.
But still a sock puppet.
Suck it up. It stands.
Next time fight your own battles and don't call your friends over to try to gang up on someone.
Coward.
I don't know why you're wasting your time with her, Pete. You can't 'call her out' because she doesn't have any integrity to begin with. She's made that abundently clear.
Yeah, I know, lil Miss "*sniff* I'm just going to let you have the last word" is aggravating, but I play to the lurkers.
And I am sick to death about little yappy kick-dogs like her coming in and trying to squelch any attempt to address men's issues with her "what about teh wimminz?!" nonsense, and then counting on people just getting sick of her yammering and letting her win by default.
Reading the extremely disparate statements in this between men and women reminds me of what Toby Young said in the interview with Dr. Helen in the segment 'Ask Dr. Helen on PJTV: From Patriarch to Patsy' wherein her said that 'men and women cannot discuss the most important issues there are because we have no 'common ground.'
Brillant.
The way women are today, I swear if aliens from outer space landed on Earth I think all the men of the world would have far, far more in common with them and would be able to communicate with them 100 times better than these American women.
American women have lost all touch with reality and are for all practical purposes, insane and completely useless- even to themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"And I've had those slacker male manager types that duck out of the office and have no accountability for their whereabouts and they're out goofing off. At least people tending children have a better excuse for their shirking."
I have a male manager right now who sits right in front of me all day who kicks his feet up on his desk and bullshits around about 50%of the time while all the rest of us (guys mind you) are busting our asses off under the gun to make quota.
Why is he able to do this and get away with it? Because he busted his ass off harder than all the rest of us combined for five long years amassing countless accounts that pay him a ridiculous sum each month- not to mention he is an absolutely brillant salesman. Talent and hard work pay off. Not to mention the fact we need a good leader and he is an incredible one at that- not to mention his graciousness in helping the rest of us which I don't think I could have made it this far without him-it's extremely challenging work (not a woman in sight either I might add - ball busting hard work and women do not mix).
Whereas the female mamagers I have had in the past have all been absolutely hideous monsters- petty to the point of psychosis, wild mood swings, always out or awol (which was actually the only blessing - thank god) would try to argue with you like you were their boyfriend or husband, would blame you and others for their own mistakes, would say no simply out of spite whenever you asked for something, would take a question about how to do something as a sign of incompetemnce, would withhold information, bring their chidlren to work, make constant personal phone calls all hours of the day, made everyone hate them including all the female employees with ridiculous demands and put downs simply as a means of getting attention, treated everyone like children, were demeaning in their regard for your intelligence while 100% of the time it was they who were the moron (and there's nothing worse than being lectured by an idiot) constantly caused never ending drama and stress that was all completely unnecessary, and of course did absolutely no work at all.. ever.
I've rarely encountered a woman who busted her ass off to get where she is or had the talent or genius to get there on her own- 98%of the time a woman only acquires a position in a company through hiring preferences and special programs, favors, etc. Thus the female obsession with 'privileges.'
Sounds like a lot of you have a looooong way to go in learning how the real world works.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hee Hee.
I take it the woman-firster has been posting and deleting ?
This line from the author of 'Womenomics" is very telling:
"Before I go any further, I want to say that I know I’m privileged. I’m a white woman with a higher education and an upper-middle class upbringing."
This is basically just another case of one woman with a particular background and set of ideological leanings attempting to instruct and speak for all women, in all professions, from all backgrounds and beliefs and parts of the country. It's like the representatives of a left-wing feminist organization telling us that Sarah Palin is 'anti-women'... they think they're the ones that decide what a woman is and ought to be (but unfortunately they're the self-appointed cultural mouthpieces, even if many women do in fact disagree with them or just live out their lives differently).
I mean she goes on to basically admit how 40 hour work weeks are a privilege already and that she should be thankful, but really, she wants to take yoga classes! I haven't met many women like this... I've encountered some when I worked in NYC for a couple of years, but even there most of the women I know would think she's a flake; maybe it's because I work in science research, and overall the kinds of people there have a different work ethic and are different in terms of personality. Seriously, the laziest people I've met in different workplaces were not men vs women, but state employees generally - those who have jobs basically guaranteed, and so could allow themselves to take three hour lunch breaks and come into work at 10:30; they used to piss me off and slow down my own work whenever I needed information from them on grant funding and the like. Granted there were a few hard-working ones in the lot, but there were others - women and men - who just disappeared from their desks for hours.
I also wonder how well this author's argument would hold up for women in blue collar jobs, or women who are nurses, or who work in other professions that are not office jobs and where it's more difficult to maintain an illusion of work while doing very little. Two of my previous bosses in research groups (one man, one woman) would both walk into people's labs/cubicles unannounced and casually look over their shoulders at what they were doing on the computer. They also demanded regular progress reports and proof of work - analyses run, papers written, etc. They knew that people can sit at a computer looking industrious while getting little done (even in science, where the people took the jobs not because of the pay or the wonderful hours, but mainly because of interest).
Just a quick correction - the above quote, that I believed to be from the authors of Womenomics - is from a female blog contributor who supports the authors (I initially misread the quote as one lifted from a Salon interview). Still, that doesn't change the substance of my previous post, given that this female blog contributor seems to be part of the same class/mindset/background as the authors and is pretty much their cheerleader, willing to push their message (even though she hasn't read the book...)
"If everyone decides to do this, what happens to US productivity.."
Why, the economy would collapse. Oh- that's right- it already has. Of course let's find a couple of men who truly are evil and blame all of it on them- that always works.
One or 2 guys running Ponzi schemes couldn't destroy the entire economy even if they wanted to. No, it requires a concerted effort brought on by an attitude of "we're just not going to work, but we'll figure out ingenius ways to divert everyone's attention away from that fact," that women in the workplace in America have so richly blessed us with. Thanks ladies.
Repeal the 19th Amendment!
(ducks and covers)
Barefoot and pregnant.
Whatever happened to the way in which America was made strong?
Women walking around with abortion clinics between their legs , which is the opposite of barefoot and pregnant, has brought America to its knees.
Instead of going to work to pay for 'stuff' they need to be home breastfeeding their babies or caring for their grandchildren.
To take a quote from the early feminazis " A woman in pants is like a fish riding a bicyle".
When women return to their vocations as wives and mothers, instead of b***es and H*es our sanity will return.
Come on back home, girls.
I really don't give a hoot if women do this, but it has to come with a few realizations:
You will be paid less.
You will drop on the promotion list.
You will rise on the layoff list.
I've never met a woman who actually dug in and rolled up her sleeves, and did the same work as the men complain about the whole "76 cents on a dollar" myth. Oh, yeah. There is a reason for that.
mark hays --
"Yes, it does. And it also answered another question I had for you but didn't ask: Are you a liar?"
Nope. It's just the the real world is not like your fevered delusion.
"I've never even heard of an office or corporation where the women did all the actual work and were always there 40 hours a week every week,"
Didn't say they did all the work and I was speaking of two women, not all, nor that they were always there 40 hours any more than all men are. Straw. Sun bleached, tasteless straw.
"and I have had more years in the corporate environment than all of you put together (I can tell)"
But, apparently you can't do math.
"and have worked with countless other companies over the years through the companies I was actually working for at that time."
Countless. Math challenged.
So your rebut against my observation that two specific women were better managers than two specific men sends you into such a tizzy over the thought that there could be those individuals on those ends of the scale that you manufacture straw arguments to purge the concept from your brain so you may rest swaddled in the comfort that all men are superior to all women, an axiomatic falsehood.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What he's objecting to is your notion of "I have two examples so none of this matters." No, not said in so many words. Clearly implied.
Fail.
Epic fail.
Here's where I object to things - hen an issue impacting men is identified, and a solution proposed which will have no impact on women who do not game the system, still it is objected to, dismissed, and "pish-toshed" with some statistical or ancedotal morality.
The thesis is simple. If a man busts his ass, works overtime, takes advantage of training, etc. He makes the big bucks. If another man doesn't - he makes the little bucks, no excuses accepted.
This goes for women too. Popping out a couple of rugrats and taking off work to care for them is not a qualification for promotion. Period. End of story.
Those "Good Managers" obviously either didn't do this, or found a way to offset family commitments. Good on them. It's proof that those who do not slack can get ahead. This simple law of the workforce jungle - perform or stagnate - will not affect women who perform, and to argue otherwise is to say that slacker women should get a break just because they are women.
A job: If it was fun they wouldn't pay you for it, they would charge admission.
Oligonicella,
Ha ha, I'm not quite certain what exactly you're babbling about, but one thing is for certain whatever it is, it doesn't matter at all to anyone anywhere ever. First sign of truly delusional thinking.
Reminds me of 98% of what women 'do' in the office.
This comment has been removed by the author.
A woman does not have to join a secret society like the Freemasons, to get where they are going.
I would rather work in an environment of women bringing their children to work, and taking time off to care for personal matters. Oh, wait, I have. I was the boss once upon a time.
It was my duty and responsibility to provide a workplace for my girls that honored their womanhood. The place was clean; physically, and morally. Their children could be there and find their mother respected and appreciated. My personal morals were proper, and they could often find me praying for our clients and them. (sometimes they would come into my office while I had the door closed).
All the women under my charge knew I believe they should be stay at home mommies. They also knew I would beat up any man that was rude to them. This happened twice; after that word was out.
The measure of any society is its women, and how their men treat them.
The measure of a man is how much he loves his Mother, and all the other women he deals with.
May God grant eternal rest to my own dear mommie; I wish I would have been a better son.
...I fear that Womenomics is just a buzzword for a slow descent into becoming like France, where the unemployment is high and the vacations are generous. Is this really better?.....
France has abandoned the Faith.
They are like hogs eating corn cobs; they eat and eat and eat, but never are full. Their lifestyles without the True Faith is not something I would want.
Pray for France.
"They also knew I would beat up any man that was rude to them."
----------------
If you really mean that, "Pablo", we've got to sign you up for a world championship boxing match. You could use a spare $20 million or so, couldn't you?
If you don't really mean that, you are a self-absorbed twit.
I'm betting on the latter.
Actually, I'm betting on a woman taking the role of the chivalrous "Pablo".
...you are a self-absorbed twit...
The battles men get into are for free. The reason we have to fight is evil has run rampant everywhere. Us men have let our passions overcome us, and this is not good.
I walked into my new office and saw my secretary was crying. When she told me a client had come in and made her cry, I cuffed him and backhanded him twice. I took him out to the stairwell and told him he could go back in and beg forgiveness or go over the rail (we were on the second floor; he was three inches taller, and had me by about fifty pounds). Afterwards I gave him my phone and told him to call the cops, call his friends, or call his mother, but that better be the end of it.
Evil is everywhere, even where you would least suspect it; law enforcement, public schools, the government, at the local coffee shop.
I like boxing, football, rugby, and so on. But I wouldn't get into these fight groups because they seem a little homoerotic to me. Some of the guys do look genuine, though.
20 million? Most of my wealthy friends like hanging around because we are poor and still have lots of fun. Life is what you make it.
And life is so much better when you are nice to women.
A box of See's chocolates and some flowers every now and then go a lot farther than twenty million dollars.
God be with you young lady.
You should meet Chuckles, Pablo. LOL
Do you think you could beat up Chuckles? Maybe he thinks he could chivalrously beat you up - but you would both only assault the other one if a little lady complains.
By the way, do you ALWAYS jump right away when the little lady tells you to beat up a man (or when she just cries and points?) ... or ... do you try to determine whether she is being manipulative first?
This board is getting a funny cast of trolls at least.
I realize that Pablo is kind of a cartoonish troll, but there are hotheads like him in the world.
He should have been arrested, and criminal charges and a tort suit should have been initiated.
And any man who simply jumps on the word of a woman is very easy to manipulate. That's not something to be proud of.
Pablo - "Evil is everywhere"
And, lucky you, all that you have to do to see it first hand is look in the mirror.
Even though I took the story of how you manhandled a client for making a secretary cry cry to be complete and utter BS, if true, it would make you guilty of assault - a crime, for no greater provocation than a woman being made unhappy. It's also an excellent example of the evil you speak of.
Thank you for providing such a fine example of what evil looks like.
Uh oh!, Pablo,
Looks like there's another unhappy woman out there:
Sotomayor fractures ankle at New York airport (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98ML40G0&show_article=1)
Maybe it's time for you to go a killing spree to avenge her?
It is sad that most Americans need the police to protect them, the government to care for them, and whackos like Oprah and Dr. Phil to tell them how to live; everyone not a pervert or liberal is considered a clown.
In my neighborhood there is no crime, we all know each other, and visit the ederly often. It is not unusual for us men to have a beer and enjoy some tobacco every now and then. We try to make our country a better place to live, for ourselves and others.
I don't think I have ever heard my neighbors slander each other. They will rise to the occasion to protect those in need.
They are good Americans.
Can you say, "Captain Save-A-Ho?"
Actually that is the other half of the problem.. everyone expects women to behave like spoiled children with IQs smaller than their shoe size, making outlandish excuses for their bizarre behavior, but what is truly unforgivable is the men who enable it.
I remember my daughter coming home crying because "Some creep" had followed her around and "bothered" her at a party.
Some questioning discovered that she had tarted herself up a little to get the male attention of a guy she had a crush on, and she got the male attention of someone she didn't fancy; of course, this became "his fault" for some reason.
(This was shortly after coming to live with me away from her mother, who taught and encouraged such blaming behavior)
A few years of teaching her to take responsibility for herself changed her from the spoilt 13 year old princess I got from her mother's care, into the responsible young wife and woman she is today.
I imagine it's far more likely Pablo's secretary recieved different lessons and enabling from people like Pablo. It must be nice to know that all you have to do is summon some crocodile tears and you can be as rude as you want to people, because if they displease you, you can get your terrorist Boss to go after them irrationally.
I kicked his ass! He was bigger than me! LOL!
I realize that Pablo is kind of a cartoonish troll, but there are hotheads like him in the world.
He should have been arrested, and criminal charges and a tort suit should have been initiated.
If true, I'm hoping he tries that on someone who turns around and maims him for life. Because I am willing to bet his secretary was actually at fault, and just crying to get Pablo to do her bidding.
And the psychology is that it's fairly likely Pablo regards her as his "property" somehow, and secretly wants to bone her - if not overtly demands sex as his payment for "protection."
Good on you, Pete.
Most men are not able to get their children turned around, for whatever reason.
I don't have to be rewarded with sex from a woman. The job I was boss of called for helping women that were homeless; some were sleeping in their cars with five or six children. I worked establishing the new program for what turned out to be nine months, with no pay. My wife and eight children helped as much as they could, and thanks to God, the program is a success. It has been around now since 1990.
After a couple of years at the program, I left. No fanfare, no big parade.
Us men have more duties and obligations than running around trying to poke women who are not our wives.
My private thoughts for people I encounter is " May God bless and protect you".
That's what a real man holds in his thoughts and in his heart.
And what did you do for men in similar situations?
I'm little impressed by such do-gooder programs as I have found that they - for practical purposes - will bend over backwards to help women out whose dire straits are a result of a series of criminal and stupid choices, and have nothing but "Man Up" for men in similar situations for demonstrably no fault of their own.
My daughter was raised to be an upstanding woman because I made it clear to both my children that I would not intervene - except in matters of physical safety - in them receiving any but the full measure of consequences for their actions, even if it made them cry; and that their claims would not be automatically either believed or disbelieved - and if I found them telling me anything less than the whole and unvarnished truth, the consequences would be instant, devastating, and not open to appeal.
I'm well familiar with the practices of your "Gawd" and churches. They would be the same ones that threw me under the bus when my ex-wife decided to break up our family, move in with the same dyke that wound up molesting my daughter, and they took her side on some "weaker vessel" theory of "What did you do to make her be that way?"
Really familiar with it. It's why I stopped believing in Sky Fairy.
Another aspect to all of this no one has mentioned here & I never see mentioned any where else is the extreme disrepect of it all.. "I'll come in when I damn well please and do whatever I want," is the attitude you get from women that even a child can pick up on.
Women in the workplace (and in general today) are like Cartmen from South Park ("I do what I want!!" - Cartmen really should be a female character- it would be so much more appropriate- obnoxious, evil to the core, completely self-centered and incapable of normal human interaction).
It's that infantile mindless defiance of a 13 year old as well- a sneering F*** YOU! is what I picture every time I think of of all the women I have had the extreme displeasure of working with over the decades.
It speaks volumes about the attitudes of women and the extreme disrespect they have for what men do and what they sacrifice in our society- 'women should be paid as much as men even though they don't do even 1/1,000,000,000 for society and the world' HA HA- You know what I say? "F*** YOU TOO, lady."
HA HA HA Imagine if Thomas Edison whined and worried about 'flex time' or if Henry Ford came in late everyday and left early or any other of the millions of men who built and invented everything past and present that is all around you in your everyday life. These men did it all because they had passion and drive and a love for what they do and a creative spirit.
Women are not just 'not productive' they are anti-productive- the very opposite of all the spirit and creativity that made this country the greatest on Earth and now today women are rotting it from the inside everyday like a cancer with psychotic laws that force the workplace into nothing more than a daycare center for adult women.
And where were all the women during this period in which the U.S. grew and advanced more rapidly than any other civilization in human history? Out of the way- where they belonged.. at home taking care of our children.
...And what did you do for men in similar situations?...
We would get them a project to work on such as fixing something at the homes we had. Often, we would not pay by the hour but by the need. If a guy needed three hundred dollars for food and to keep the lights on, we paid him three hundred dollars up front. If he did not come back, no problem.Sometimes we had to write several checks to keep them from going under. It wasn't easy, and we did not fix the whole world. We helped those the Lord sent our way as best we could. We never advertised, or put a PR campaing together for money. The Lord provided.
Do you really think God cares whether you believe in Him or not?
A lot of guys have bitten the dust dealing with a system that is out of control. For families, where I live the mother is no longer automatic winner. A Parenting Plan can be put together by either one, and the Court decides who will provide for the best interests of the minor children. The best part of the plan? One word: shall. The Judges have to and most important the beaurocrats have to obey this law. And if the parent with the plan doesn't do it, they are sanctioned. Its not perfect, but a step in the right direction.
The reason politicians made this law was the heat they got from their fellow citizens who constantly made them accountable. Not easy, but you have to do it.
God cares about you so much, He even gave you this blog to comment on, developed by the beautiful woman in charge.
You have never needed your daughters love for you to love and believe in them, that you may bless them and guide them as a good father does.
God does the same.
Hey Pablo, have you ever checked out Buddhism?
Meditation will do wonders for you and you can move towards experiencing reality and the universe directly. And also the reincarnation aspect.
Not your cup of tea?
I don't FUCKING CARE, because I am going to shove it on you left and right and never let up.
Just like you hard-core Christians do to everyone else.
Get it, you FUCKING DOPE?
In a lot of countries, your private ideas of spirituality are not something to wear on your sleeve, not something to shove on other people, and not something to bring up with strangers.
And this "I am holier than thou, let me instruct you" is wearing just about as thin with me as the "I'm a man's man and a real man" thing.
Has everyone in the United States become a walking tryout for a sit-com?
I can only think that there are so many idiots because they copy what they see on TV - and even internalize it.
What the loud-mouth, know-it-all Christians may not understand: There may be people who are very into religion and spirituality, but they don't rub it in others' faces. I have met them.
You think you must be the expert on the matter because you are constantly running your mouth and no one seems to be opposing you (except me).
Mark Hays,
I have enjoyed reading your comments and appreciate your candor. Thank you for your kindness towards me during our communications.
Please feel free to contact me anytime you like.
Nice talking with you.
pablo
So what we have is a "Christian" who will find a woman crying, and criminally assault a man who just left, without asking so much as one question as to what went on?
Oh, Merciful Gawd - save us from your followers!
@Pete "Oh, Merciful Gawd - save us from your followers!"
You're out of touch, Pete. According to Newsweek Obama is God now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4VZ8xCzOg
"Your words, her mouth. Hired spokesthings are sock puppets too; if you want to be specific, it's the "Astroturfer" subtype.
But still a sock puppet.
Suck it up. It stands.
Next time fight your own battles and don't call your friends over to try to gang up on someone.
Coward."
"I don't know why you're wasting your time with her, Pete. You can't 'call her out' because she doesn't have any integrity to begin with. She's made that abundently clear.
Yeah, I know, lil Miss "*sniff* I'm just going to let you have the last word" is aggravating, but I play to the lurkers.
And I am sick to death about little yappy kick-dogs like her coming in and trying to squelch any attempt to address men's issues with her "what about teh wimminz?!" nonsense, and then counting on people just getting sick of her yammering and letting her win by default."
So... Mark is your sock puppet, Pete?
You know, I actually had to stop lurking to point this little bit of crap out. Normally I just read the comments from you, Mark, Tether, etc.. because whenever I think I am getting too bitter and cynical about women in general, the over the top blanket comments from you guys really put things in perspective for me. But when you guys gang up on someone like you do Laura, then start crying about it when it happens to you, it reminds me of elementary school bullies getting all teary-eyed when the smaller kids finally get together to get some of their own back. But then, most bullies in school are just acting out because of their being abused at home... or at least that is the excuse I hear from the bleeding hearts. I suppose that is your excuse as well?
Oh wait, that was "Shaming" language wasn't it? My bad. I suppose I should just let the poor little bully-boys act out their hurt feelings on anyone, male or female, who has the gall to not toe their line.
If it were not for the fact you would probably quit posting, I would love to see what would happen if the good Dr. Helen ever tried to get you to clarify one of your statements. But then I would lose the benefit of the perspective you guys provide me.
Honestly, I do have quite a bunch of bitterness towards women... namely the 'mate with Marlboro Man and marry Mr. Nice Guy to raise Marl's kids' thing I see all the time.
And the 'read my mind so you know I am or am not attracted to you' thing.
And the 'Mr. Alpha Male kicked me to the curb so I will settle with you, Mr. Beta, until I find another Mr. Alpha to screw around with while you take care of my financial needs' thing.
Yeah... I am slightly bitter. In my heart of hearts I think I put women on a pedestal so I can both hate and adore them. Sad... but I have not hit bottom yet. And you guys provide men like me with a service in letting us know by example where the bottom is. Hell, I think you guys might actually be in a crater of your own making down there. Impressive.
Ah, sorry about that.. more "Shaming Language".
Sad thing is I no longer know or care what the subject supposedly up for discussion was. Ah well.
Looking forward to your responses. I sure they will be a hoot, and will do my sorry little ego some good to read. Thank you for doing so much to help me feel better about myself.
Back to lurking.
Won't ever see me crying.
In my heart of hearts I think I put women on a pedestal
You've said it all. Hope you put a little bleach on your white cape with your riding to the rescue of Little Miss Poor Me.
All better now?
Woan firsting - regardless of whether it is the Womanism of Laura, or the Chivalry of Chuckles the Toad Prophet - cause the problem.
The oh-so-sensible "moderation" of "ell, yes, that is wrong BUUUUT" only serves to maintain the status quo. All it says is "Gee, that's awful, but it can never be made better, so you'll just have to suck it up guys."
Women like Laura - might as well be the same woman. Let a guy say "I am going through this woman behaving badly" and out come the questions who ask him "WHat did you do to cause her to rape you?" (Yeah, it's just like that). Or she has a friend of a friend's bbrother's Wife's Second cousin's stepdaughter who had something like that happen to her from a MAN, So You Just SHUT UP because MEN are Just As Bad! (Stomp foot, flounce)
Propose a corection - hich will only affect such women as behave badly (Paternity fraud, anyone?) and they come out with "Ooooooooh Noooooooooooes! What About Teh Chiiiiiiiiiildrunzzzzzzz!"
And now not ony are they not interested in correcting it - you can join them. One thing you left out of your self analysis there, Victor.
You got fucked over - so you don't want to see any other man NOT get fucked over. It would be unfair, wouldn't it?
Pete said...
I remember my daughter coming home crying because "Some creep" had followed her around and "bothered" her at a party.
Some questioning discovered that she had tarted herself up a little to get the male attention of a guy she had a crush on, and she got the male attention of someone she didn't fancy; of course, this became "his fault" for some reason.
...
Let a guy say "I am going through this woman behaving badly" and out come the questions who ask him "WHat did you do to cause her to rape you?"
So it's OK to ask a woman what she might have done to bring crap on herself (and I would have asked my daughter the same thing, and done the same as you did there) but you can't question whether a man might be at fault at all?
Why?
Do you sincerely believe, Pete, that a man CANNOT be at fault?
So You Just SHUT UP because MEN are Just As Bad! (Stomp foot, flounce)
You have to mock me, because my arguments are unanswerable. We all get it.
No, Laura, it is certainly okay to ask my daughter - who had just come under my roof after having been trained to be a self-indulgent whiner by her mother - because she had already shown at that point in her life she was prone to indulge herself in blame-shifting, selfish and manipulative behavior. A pattern I broke.
You, on the other hand, ave no such basis for thinking someone might be less than at face value, besides their possession of a "Y" chromosome.
Thanks for playing though. It makes it easier when I don't have to mock you because you mock yourself by speaking out of ignorance.
Pete, when the guy said his friend had a gift for getting out of doing things he didn't want to do, I took that at face value.
You were the one who made up the whole story about how dreadful his wife must have been.
"So yes, when a guy has a gift for getting out of things he doessn't want to do, I'm going to be cheering him on, because chances are, those things he doesn't want to do falls under "'We're going to make a deal to split the labor, then I am going to expect you to hold up your end of the split and half of mine.'"
You made that excuse up for him out of whole cloth. It couldn't be that the man is lazy and immature, could it? Once again, you simply can't admit that a man could be at fault, can you?
Once again, you simply can't admit that a man could be at fault, can you?
We're not talking about men. There's your fucking problem. There is where you consistently miss the point.
Let Doc Helen put up a post about Paternity Fraud, like she did some time back, and you get the gaggle of womanist harpies descending on it, and not wanting to talk about the bad behavior of women, but instead turn it into a conversation about "How much worse women have it" or "These men are a bunch of whiners" or some other thing.
Anything but discuss the subject at hand, to wit, that in far too many instances men are forced under color of law to subsidize the bad behavior (Paternity fraud) or personal choices (the 76 cents on the dollar myth) of women.
BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH WIMMINZ?!?!?!?!
What about them? You can go to Pandagon, Feministe, and a whole host of other feminist sites where Teh Wimminz woes, real and imagined, are discussed with hand wringing detail, and milked dry of every drop of angst and pathos that can be summoned.
Cthulhu fucking forbid that anyone, let alone - Gasp! a woman!- actually say something lke "You know, the very vast and very overwhelming majority of men are not losers, or rapists, or serial philanderers, or abusers, or harassers, or chronically unemployed or underemployed, or deadbeats or any of the other pop culture caricatures, and get short shrift" without a bunch of the Womanist Harpy Blog Patrol coming in a squawking about how it's really not so bad, and we must dissect them, and question them, and do everything in our power to dismiss them and turn the conversation back to Teh Wimminz! Because, yanno, we have it harder and everything.
Fuck the fuckety fucking fuck out of that.
So, to counter that, yes Indeed, Womanist Harpy Laura, I am going to assume (1) he's telling the truth, unless someone can PROVE he's not (You make the assertion he's lying, burden is on you), and (2) Find reasons to counter your misandrist attempts to dismiss him and turn the conversation back to Teh Wimminzes.
When the subject of the blog post is the bad behavior of men, we can talk about that. If it isn't, inserting it is changing the subject, off-topic, and trolling.
So, yes, I will resist your anti-male, woman-firsting attempts to marginalize men's issues with your "But teh Wimminz! Teh Chiiildrunz!" bullshit by whatever means necessary.
If you want to bash men and such, there's plenty of places to do so.
"I am going to assume (1) he's telling the truth, unless someone can PROVE he's not "
Exactly what I did - the guy said his friend gets out of doing work he doesn't want to do. I assumed he was telling the truth about his friend.
I've said before that some of you folks are the mirror-image of the man-hating feminists. You have now abundantly proved my point. Neither you nor they have any philosophy that interests me whatsoever. If you were the only commenter here I'd never visit this blog again, but you're not. So I suggest that in future you scroll past my comments, as I shall yours.
I assumed he was telling the truth about his friend.
You assumed the most base motives, which speak volumes about your character.
So I suggest that in future you scroll past my comments, as I shall yours.
Fuck that. I'm not giving you a pass on your misandry.
If you want to more or less admit to the lurkers you ain't got nothing, that's your business.
Well Pete, beginning at "twenty to nine"I can agree almost 100% with your 9:45 A.M. June 07, 2009 post. Been there and done that myself with 3 kids. I don't think most stay at home moms ever know the meaning, much less the specter, of "have to".
"If everyone decides to do this, what happens to US productivity," I thought, "and why is it that work is seen as distastefull unless one can set their own hours, have free access to childcare and a loving boss?"
So, no more Going Galt?
Post a Comment
<< Home