Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Woman earns Nobel Prize (allows husband to stay-at-home
after he
> >pays for everything)
> >From: "Avenger" me{at}avengers.co.uk
> >Date: 1/16/2005 7:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >(edit)
>
> >
> >Absolutely. A woman might support herself and rarely support herself
and a
> >kid. But has anyone ever heard of a female supporting herself, a kid
and her
> >husband?And I mean really support not a case where a man has a
pension or is
> >receiving a disability or SS cheque.
>
> But Mark,  you're assuming that most women have a vested interest in
supporting
> a husband.  Clearly they don't.
> The reason men marry is to get regular sex from the mother of their
children.
> The reason women marry is to have help supporting those kids.  If the
mother
> wants to raise the kids herself she hardly has incentive to support a
husband,
> let alone a sexist husband who does not do his share of the unpaid
work.

HAHAHAHA!

Do you hear me arguing with you on this?

Indeed.  Men do not marry to have "gestation" services for children.
Men marry for sex among other reasons. I've said so all along.
Thank you.  Women marry men for men's _abilities_ to produce an income.

The women themselves are sexist for not wanting to support a husband,
even one who does "unpaid" work whether he's sexist or not.

I'm getting this feeling of deja vu where I sound like Tom Cruise
interrogating Jack Nicholson: If this work truly is unpaid, Parg,
why don't 99% of these non-sexist women want to support ANY
man to do it?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/31/05 2:06:11 PM ---