In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>
> (EDIT)
>
> > She, nor women even, can't "grant" them the "choice" to
> > date wealthy, "non-sexist" men to grant all their dreams.
>
> Mark, no one ever promised your alleged wife a rose garden;

It's funny you should put it that way.  We just bought
potted tulips. :-)

> she is
> paying the price for her citizenship and freedom and it would be very
> difficult for me to believe that you, a man who bought her from the
> net, could be the "man of her dreams".

One of the wonderful things about our relationship is we
both made compromises and still love each other.

Do you think all men who meet their spouse through the
internet "buy" their wives?  Indeed, 20 years ago,
few women used the personal ads.  It's a sign of
desperation for career women that nearly all of
them MUST put themselves "up for sale" by going
online because men no longer "ask them out" in
the workplace.

>  For one thing, you've told us
> you're not rich, and by your posts, it's obvious you're a self-avowed
> sexist.

So what about the latter?

What's wrong with a "sexist" holding open his wife's door
and coat and treating her as most women dream of being
treated?

>  No woman 'dreams' of being married to such a man.

Check out the romance novel section of your local
B & N sometime.

>  And, on a
> personal note, I think it's a good thing for all people to work in such
> a way that it contributes to society, which is why I'm in favor of
> inheritance tax.  :-)

If social security privitization works out, you'll
get your wish personally. :-)

> > She can say women can do as they see fit but REALITY says
> > otherwise.  I choose to disempower her.
>
> You can't really "disempower" the choices women have, tho.

That's what's so neat: I am just making observations
about life.  I don't have to be all that powerful individually
to simply state obvious truths.

> I mean even
> women who leave their abusive (but rich) husbands

Define "abusive?"

Certainly, if the wealthy men are beating them up ala
"Sleeping with the enemy", you have a point.  But
in reality, if the guy is off playing golf at various
locations on his learjet, he's probably not going to
bother being all that abusive really.

> to live a lifestyle
> that is clearly not a wealthy one shows us that women DO have power
> over their own lives.

Yeah, when that happens.  (sneer :-)

> So, it isn't my own power you're addressing
> here.

Nearly every woman I've met whose really into
"feminism" and politics usually lead relatively
boring lives and don't have a lot of the status
or grandeur they would like to think they
are entitled to.  So they rail on and on about
how bad men are to feel self-important and
leading a "revolution" when they go home
from their jobs as as a clerk.

ALL of the professional women I met who were double
dippers didn't care about feminism really.  They
like the money and status that feminism has given
them but they don't care one whit about the details.
If they're angry with men, it's not because
the men have deprived them of a CEO position but
rather because the men aren't holding open their
doors anymore.

Politically, the feminist groups have a disproportionate
influence considering that few women identify themselves
with them.  Most of the votes that come in for marxist
leftism are for racial issues.

In other words, you're right: It's not your power I'm
addressing.  You would have to have some power
for that to be valid.  I'm just dancing on a feminist
grave here (despite GA's objections to the contrary.)
It's just that most people don't realize that feminism's
dead yet.

> (edit)
> >>
> > My opinion is that she can blab on all she likes about
> > how "bitterboys" "buy" women while
"liberated women"
> > enjoy the "choice" to wind up alone and childless because
> > they planned that all along.
>
> But "liberated women" aren't "winding up alone"
and that's pershaps
> what makes you angry.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786867663/qid=1109897654/sr=2-1/r
ef=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-2472384-1969743

>  Even the queen of liberated women, Steinem,
> married when is suited her, and not a moment before.  :-)

Yeah, a HUNDRED years ago! :-)

In a post feminist world, double dipping a lot more difficult.

> So, you can
> assume all you like.  BTW, Steinem never wanted children; she spent
> much of her youth taking care of her mother, and wanted the freedom
> that a life without children had to offer her.  It was a personal
> choice and one that she never claimed she regretted, to my knowledge.

Yeah, and EVERYONE knows how aging career women enjoy the
"choice" to blow several grand on fertility procedures with
a 1 in 6 chance of working... :-)

> Having said that, most feminists are married with children.

Yeah, because there's so few of 'em.  Most OLD people
are married with children... :-)

> So, having
> children is just a personal choice, and even single women can make that
> choice as they see fit, even lesbian women.

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

Yeah, they get to choose to pay all those bills increasingly
on their own.  Unless they move to Germany. :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/3/05 8:57:37 PM ---