Hyerdahl wrote:
> Society wrote:
> > "Viking"  wrote in message
> > news:1pq031t3v4uulq5jum5abii1ppsfe5v4h0{at}4ax.com...
> > >
> > > MCP reported...
> > >>
> > >>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=618472
> > >>   [Desperate to be housewives: young women yearn
> > >>   for 1950s role]
> > >>   By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent
> > >>  10 March 2005
> > >>
> > >>   [M]odern woman has taken a reality check.
> > >>   The average 29-year-old now hankers for a
> > >>   return to the lifestyle of a 1950s housewife.
> > >>   The daughters of the "Cosmo" generation
> > >>   of feminists want nothing more than a
> > >>   happy marriage and domestic bliss in the
> > >>   countryside, according to a survey.
>
> It seems to me that a woman who can't make it in a career might well
> want to be a SAH mom, and that some men would like nothing better.
> However, women who are successful seem to be in the SITCity crowd.

Not only do such women want to be SAH moms, but they must
also compete with the successful women who also might
want that "choice" as well.

The price such women pay for the "option" to become a SAH mom
when it suits them (or they need it) is to compete with
other women for such available men.

Looking back, I had no shortage of available women who
wanted to marry a successful professional provided that
professional gave them some of the sexist perks they
craved (most especially: Free meals and doors held open.)
I know some men who gave in and it wasn't all that
expensive.  Most just got the women a cup of coffee
at Starbucks for a first date and then went into
the semi-liberated tradeoff afterwards.

> > > Well that's just great. Misguided feminism,
> > > like Marxism, ruins an entire generation.
>
> Nothing is "ruined".  Women who want careers can and do have them;
> women who have failed at careers and don't want some lame job, are
free
> to seek men to support them.

"Germany has much better healthcare than the US" --
women's reproductive rights marcher, 2004

The problem with most career women isn't sexism but the lack
of available sexist men they "seek" by waiting around for them.
Then, when they get desperate, they have to settle for men
even worse than ME!  Poor things...

> The ball's in your court.  You can accept
> that and many men seem to find it appealing, or reject it and try to
> find someone on your own terms, or go it alone.

Or he can marry foreign women.  Or he can just WAIT
(he has time on his side.)  Yep.  Men's options only
improve with age (unless some people want to deny
the obvious and make up imaginary partners.)

> > > Then says, "Oh, we were misguided," which
> > > anyone could have seen from the beginning,
> > > and dies.
>
> ARe you kidding?  Women who enjoy their jobs seem to be staying
there,
> and let's face it, how many men wear a T-shirt that says "I'd rather
be
> sailing"?   :-)  You see, the survey never asked men if they'd rather
> not be working for money in the workplace.  They don't ask the men
that
> question, eh?

Probably because most men would laugh at it.

>  Meanwhile, an entire generation
> > > destroyed. Just great.
>
> How can you say that, when so many women are thrilled to be in
dominion
> and control of their own work product?

"Germany has much better healthcare than the US" --
women's reproductive rights marcher

If women are so well off, why are feminists still so agitated?
Poor gals.  There's no more money for socialist programs
for middle class women.  Too bad, so sad.

> > Yeah, bring on the show trials!
>
> Indeed.  Men will marry the women they choose; women will marry the
men
> they choose.  It works well.

Men don't necessarily get to "choose" to marry Nicole Kidman
for example (although considering what a bitch she appears
to be, that might not be a good choice.)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 4:57:09 PM ---