From: "CE" 

On Mar 28, 12:29 am, AMBAN  wrote:
> In article , CE
says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 27, 10:01 pm, Lady Carrigaholt  wrote:
> >> CE wrote:
> >> > 
>
> >> > > you ignored all the facts presented to you and
> >>> > continued to postulate some fairy tale that men were the great
defenders and
> >> > > protectors of women.
>
> >> > Even in today's society, a man's role is to defend and provide for
> >> > women and children.
>
> >> I do quite nicely without one, as does every other Lesbian mother....
>
> >Unless you're living in a society with an army of women soldiers,
> >police forces comprised of women, and firefighting crews comprised of
> >women - or even of women and men in equal numbers - then you're
> >depending on men for your safety and the stability of the society in
> >which you live.
>
> >By the way, any lesbian who has had children has had to have a man in
> >her life at some point, even if only to provide the sperm for her to
> >conceive. So, in a very real sense, you could not have become a
> >mother, lesbian or otherwise, without a man.
>
> >Given that, why are you deluding yourself into believing you don't
> >need men?
>
> >> > There are still many more men than women in the
> >> > armies and police forces and on firefighting crews. Just count the
> >> > bodies of soldiers coming back from the war. Men are also still
> >> > regarded as providers with many, many women hoping to marry a man
> >> > who's financially secure
>
> >>I had people wanting to marry me because I was financially
secure....men,
get
> >>over
> >> yourselves...(Arcers excluded)
>
> >LOL
>
> >It's not men - or, at least, not primarily men - who want men to have
> >this role of provider. If you look around you'll realize that many
> >women want men to be financially secure to provide for their wives.
>
> >You may be an exception to the rule or you may simply, as a lesbian
> >who is financially secure, simply be attracting women who want you to
> >provide for them. You don't say in your post whether or not these
> >people who wanted to marry you because of your wealth were men or
> >women. If they were women, then all it shows is reinforce what I'm
> >saying that women tend to seek out people who can provide for them.
> >Since the vast majority of people are heterosexual, that usually means
> >women seek out financially-secure men. For lesbians, I guess they'd be
> >looking for a financially-secure woman.
>
> Most families have two wage earners.  Most women come home from work and do
the
> housework too.  Most single parent families are headed by women.   There are
> more women than men in Universities now even though women still only make 70
> cents to the dollar that men do.
> Come out of the clouds or go back to your cave.  You are dreaming.  I could
just
> as well say men seek out women to have their mother still pay the bills,
clean
> up and bear children.  It would be closer to the truth.  (Arcers excluded)
>
> I gave you the stats for this in another post long ago.  You are deluding
> yourself.
>
> AMBAN

Yes, many women in our society work and earn money. They also do most of
the housework. And more young women than young men are enrolled in
universities in North America.

Of course, if women still earn only 70 cents for very dollar a man earns,
then it's clear that the primary breadwinner in most two-income households
will be the man. So the idea that men are as likely to seek out women to
pay their bills as women are to look for financially- secure men is clearly
ludicrous based on your own figure of 70 cents to the dollar.

For what it's worth, though, I will concede that women in North America are
far more financially independent than that 70 cents to the dollar figure
would have us believe. And that's because that figure is a myth. Women do
not earn 70 cents to every dollar a man earns for work of equal value. When
other factors such as willingness to relocate, danger, and just plain
undesireability of the work are factored in, women actually make something
like 95 cents to the dollar on average and, in some occupations, earn more
than men for work of equal value.  The influence of sexism in holding down
women's wages is really very small compared to other factors and as women
begin to move into non-traditional occupations and take up jobs that
require them to accept higher levels of danger or a willingness to
relocate, their salaries are going up.

Until then, it's certainly the case that it's men who die in the greatest
numbers on our battlefields, in fires or in fighting crime. The number of
women in our armed forces, in our police forces and on firefighting crews
is still small. If you don't like that reality, then change it. I'm just
telling you the way it is.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag