Hyerdahl1 wrote:
> >From: "offline" offl1n3{at}yahoo.com

> There's nothing to waffle about;  either you have the ability to
gestate, or
> your don't.  Women don't need to support men who stay at home because
they have
> skills men don't possess.

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

Men apparently have the "skill" to have someone raise their
kids and not have their children rot in second rate
daycare or public schools because they don't
want to share the wealth.

Too bad, so sad isn't it that national daycare and healthcare
isn't going to happen for a few decades or so? :-)

> The real reason>is known to most people - women themselves openly
admit it too
> "why should i go out and work when he will?
>
> You are looking at a decision;  I am looking at motive.  Women stay
home and
> raise kids because they CAN.

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

Women stay home and raise kids because men ENABLE them to do so
whether individually or collectively through welfare.  Isn't it
interesting how, as women entered the workforce, the support
for unlimited welfare benefits dried up? :-)

>  Women are the only members of the family who can
> gestate.

Men are the only members of the family who can sire children
well into old age at a reasonable expense.  Something
aging career women are thinking more about...

> In that regard, what incentive do they HAVE to support a SAH father,
> UNLESS that works for them?

Several of course.  "free" childcare, love, getting a stud muffin.

Something amusing: I'm not a hot guy.  I'll admit that.  But
many career women who found me unattractive nonetheless settled
and dated me because all the hot guys that turned them
on weren't going to ask them out since they were
interested in younger women.

Life is truly fair.

>  Why should i make the money when i can nag him>into doing it" etc.
> >
> Here's the thing;  women CAN have family without a pussykeeper
running one.

Yeah, there's a documentary of single mother neighborhoods on TV.
It's called COPS.

>  In
> that regard, you have to ask what incentive women have to pair bond
with men.

Indeed.  "Het" women aren't turned on by wussy slacker non-sexist
men and they become miserable about paying their own bills.

This equality stuff isn't working out.  That's their problem.

> > >c) what are you on about?
> >>
> >> >what men hate women? most men don't - they might
> hate>self-centred,>supremist
> >> feminists who barely count as women - in fact, women
hate>feminists too.
> >> >
> >> Men are free to hate all women, feminist women, or doormat women.
In an
> >age of>> equal opportunity, who really cares?
> >>
> >But you see, men don't hate women.
>
> So you say;  I disagree;  who cares in an age where women have equal
rights?

Apparently the voters who wanted someone who was going to protect
them in the oval office...

> Some feminist minded women hate men - for>no other reason than being
a man, but
> that doesn't mean that hatred is inate
> >to men or normal women (aka not feminsts).
> >
> You're still not getting it, hon;  some men hate women;  some women
hate men;
> in a free and equal society how can  hatred really matter?

Because men offer women lots of "incentives" to pair bond:
A financial support system or even someone to do "free" labor
or support them to do it.

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

These women become dependant upon state largesse for
their "equal" rights.  Good luck to 'em.  Maybe we'll
privatize those too. :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/19/05 9:24:48 PM ---