In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> (edit of diatribe against men)
> >
> > In many cases, this is totally true.  But so what?  Men
> > need only do one thing women cannot do:
> >
> > Be a primary provider.
>
> But women ARE primary providers, Mark.  Many women are the sole
> support of their family.

Indeed, and almost always because there's no father
in their "family" for her children.  Which leads us to:

>AND, many women today earn more than their husbands.

Indeed.  I had a supervisor at a job in California who
earned more than her husband but left because
she wanted to spend more time with her children.
When an income is primary, it's not mad money.

> So, it appears you are wrong again.
> >
> > That's it.  If women could do just that SINGLE thing, without
> > reservation, they would be men's equals.
>
> Women may not have equal motivation to be primary providers as men
> since women have abilities men don't have, in matters of gestation

You mean such as easily having children in middle age without
spending thousands on fertility treatments which
have a 1 in 6 chance of succeeding?  :-)

It used to be in the beginning of the double dipper days
that women considered themselves cursed if the man merely
earned as much as she did.  Then she was cursed if he
earned slightly less.  Then she was cursed if she
had to become a professional single mom.

Now, the single career women who wind up paying out all of their
mad money for daycare and healthcare consider themselves
lucky they were able to have children at all!

"Ability?"  Looks more like a slippery slope to me.

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

> and in their desire to be primary caregivers.

"Mommy?  When can I be a client?" -- AT&T commercial

> That doesn't change the FACT
> that some women are primary providers;

Yeah, I could invite all of them to my house for dinner and probably
still have room left over for a super bowl party. :-)

> it simply makes the point that
> women need not make the choice to support men, in order to have equal
> rights, equal opportunity and equal treatment.

Yeah!  Instead, the above women get to support the welfare
state and their corporate bosses and often wind up
childless.

> Did you _really_
> believe women have to BE men or to make the same choices men make in
> order to BE equal?  You're so silly.

Non sequitur.  I observed that women were losing
opportunities for the choices they wanted and desired
to make them happy.  You're the one jumping for joy
over the fact that women have the same choices as
men even if they don't want them.  YOU brought
up the very few women supporting househusbands
as if that meant something.

> > Conny might be a store clerk and work more and think
> > about more details than, say, a plumber.  The difference
> > is that a plumber knows things laypeople don't.
> >
> > > Need I continue?
>
> ????  I'm not sure what point you're making; we need plumbers and store
> clerks and both are staffed by women and men.

Yes, but plumbers make a lot more than pizza store clerks.

> AND, women tend to face
> discrimination when they try to hire on as plumbers,

[violin playing]

Didn't you JUST claim that women had equal opportunity
and there was nothing I as a bitter boy could do about it?

Now you're already looking for an excuse for your agenda's
failure.  That's ok though.  I'll accept the blame
for what we BOTH know is inevitable. :-)  Of COURSE
you ladies can't win.  You're just so helpless.

> as well as women
> making different choices for different reasons.

When they CAN.  :-)

How many women working 60 hours a week as a single mother
to see their children maybe for a few minutes each night
would trade that in a second to marry a breadwinner
and "sacrifice" by spending more quality time with her child?

Indeed.  The problem for these women is less of discrimination
against women having equality with men and more of their
COMPETING with other women for the few sexist men left.

> > > I am SO NOT IMPRESSED with men these days. Go ahead, try to prove
> me
> > > wrong. I challenge you.
> > >
> > > Preferring canines above all else,
> > >
> > > C.
> >
> > Want to impress us, dear?  Pick up the check.
>
> I'm not sure she wants to impress you, Mark.

Yet she's here.  [shrug]

> It seems she doesn't like
> men or has given up on men based on her own experience.

Yeah, it sounds like she'll eventually start disliking
everything else too when she discovers the world doesn't
revolve around her.  I've been happy for quite some time now
about how things are going...

> But, no...she
> need not pick up the check to impress.  Women impress men in
> oh-so-many-other-ways,

YOUNG women. :-)  The aging childless career women impress
us in how they pick up the workload for their sisters
having children and staying at home. :-)

> and so, those women don't have to pick up the
> check to impress.  Perhaps men should simply have higher standards.
> ;-)

Or maybe different standards.

As I said in another thread, I chose what would make me
happy in the long run and I haven't looked back. That's
what smart men do.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/25/05 9:33:15 AM ---