Hyerdahl wrote:
> John Templeton wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> > > > Devalued dads
> >
> > > [Leave it to Beaver dadism was not so good for moms who were too
> busy
> > > cleaning up the hushed kids, hiding the rowdy ones, with dinner
on
> > the> table, to invest in their own careers.  Women ended this.
Women
> > aren't> returning.]
> >
> > Actually, many modern women are returning to this life.
>
> No, in fact, they are not.  There have always been women who loved
> their kids enough to SACRIFICE for them,

While the father is sacrificing even more to make this possible for
her...after all, he's the one who loses out on time spent with his
family.

> but that sacrifice, if there
> is one, is addressed by courts should the couple decide to divorce.

Just wondering--why, if a man goes along with a situation that's
obviously not to his benefit, or to which he didn't initially agree, do
you essentially say that because he "acquiesced", it's tough shit for
him, but when a woman makes a choice to take one path that hampers her
ability to take another, do you NOT use the word "acquiesce"?  Seems to
me that she acquiesced to giving up the ability to pursue a full time
career if she chose to be a full time mother.

> This actually gives sacrificing women some security and dominion and
> control over their own work product.

Well, what it actually does is give her control over someone *else's*
work product, but that aside, what you're really doing is guaranteeing
that women aren't held accountable for their choices while men are.

>  Most American women, however, are
> working outside the home, and more women than men are now entering
> college.

Yep, you've finally handicapped boys to the extent they don't go to
college in the same numbers.  Of course, bragging about winning a race
when you've shackled your opponent's ankles rings kind of hollow, but
I've never seen feminism too concerned with that.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/29/05 12:47:12 PM ---