What is wrong with this picture?

[mrniceguy148]

You keep saying this, yet you haven't presented real evidence for any of it. If it's the guys who are getting handed divorce papers, maybe they're the ones screwing up in the relationship, and are unable to respect the wishes of their partners. What is so wrong with divorce anyway? If a relationship doesn't work, it's usually a bad place for the kids to be in anyway, and spouses are better off finding somebody they get along with. I'd really like to see your evidence for working women producing "weak men and dysfunctional boys." It might seem logical in your mind, but "in practice" it's completely irrelevant to working women. Also, I would like to see what the guys here who have been raised by two working parents think of this. Even if you do deny the evidence to the contrary, look at the bright side, at least it raises strong, confident women.

Hi Mulan,

You ask:

What is so wrong with divorce anyway?

Nothing in a case of some kind of abuse. However, what I've seen mostly is two stupid parents breaking up over petty nonsense, and then trashing the needs of the kids in the process. Since when were the parents needs more important than the needs of the kids? BTW, step dads are useless and most kids have little respect for them.

Actually, the fact that today's generation of boys can't keep up with the girls in school tells me that today's single moms and today's feminized uni-sex educational system are a total failure when it comes to raising and disciplining boys. These statistics tell you all that you need to know about the evils of frivilous divorce and about the failures of single moms.

So, I get it now! Divorced working women don't actually give a damn if their sons fail in school because the fathers were thrown out of the family. In reality the only things that really matter are her paycheck and her loser boyfriend.

Feminism is an evil that is destroying our society. You either recognize "evil" when you see it, or you don't. You obviously don't!

Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[mrniceguy148]

Hi Mulan,

Just a few comments on some things that you said last week.....

Why would you want to go back to that lifestyle and how is "father knows best" better than "Mr. Mom" and "Murphy Brown"?

--- Father Knows Best was the representation of what a well adjusted family was supposed to be in that era. The father was successful, fair, even tempered and respected by his wife and kids. His wife was giving, supportive, a good mother, and not condescending or selfish. The kids were happy, good students, and well adjusted. It was the average person’s American dream, with no dysfunctional bullshit. What’s wrong with that?

However, on the other hand, “Mr. Mom” was a wimp. I know it and so do most women. Enough said…..

Now we have the feminist poster-child “Murphy Brown“. First off, the women is divorced with two kids which means that she was either stupid enough to marry a barbarian or else she just ripped her kids away from their father on a whim. Either way she screwed up. Secondly she’s holding down a news anchor job which is something that few people can ever aspire to. The message being given to women here is, “go ahead and leave your husband and you’ll become rich and famous. The reality is usually quite different for many divorced women.

Given a choice between the three, “Father Knows Best” is a no-brainer! Boy in a 21st century setting.

What's wrong with a father staying home and taking care of the kids?

-- A father staying home and taking care of the kids sets a bad example; especially if any of those kids happen to be his sons. Who would you rather see your boy idolize? Davy Crockett or Richard Simmons? I really hope that you answered, ‘Davy Crockett”?

What's wrong with a woman suceeding in the business world? Culturaly-prescribed gender roles oppress the potentials and self-expression of both sexes.

---- There’s a simple answer to that question. Married men simply need the jobs more than most women: single or married, and they should get them!

Oh, I forgot to tell you something very important about myself! If I had my way women would have never been given the right to vote. Like our founding fathers intended, I’m as much in favor of restricting a women’s say in how society is run as you seem to be in favor of destroying and feminizing the traditional role of men in society and in the family unit. The way that I see it now, it’s either us or them. There can be no compromise here. There’s only winners and losers in the battle of the sexes: This is something that our founding fathers, and the Bible, understood quite well and tried to protect us from. It's the old "democracy destroying itself through an excess of democracy" thing again.

Congratulations for making a spectacular end run around good old fashioned common sense! Now you’re dealing with a whole generation of wishy-washy guys who actually want women to support them financially and fight their wars for them. You win by default. It’s disgraceful……..I give up! LOL !!

Most people who have to work actually hate their boring and mundane jobs, so it’s ridiculous to say that work is a vehicle for self-expression, or that it helps people to reach their full potential. Actually, work usually squashes the creative human spirit through corporate rules and regulations and through cut-throat office politics.

BTW, how long have you actually been in the work force? Not long, I’d imagine, because you seem to be wet behind the ears…….

However, if you’d really like to explore your creative side then I’d suggest that you marry a rich guy, quit your miserable job and use the free time to either write a book or start your own business! Although, if your business is successful then please hire some guys who are actually trying to support a wife and kids! LOL !!

Both women and men have more options in today's world. Why do you feel that your urge to support a family and discipline sons is universal for all males and not just for you as an individual? You still have that option in today's society provided you find a woman willing to put up with it (as you obviously have).

--- Most people, at least, still think that they want to try to make a marriage work. Although these days I think that marriage has become a particularly risky financial and emotional investment for most guys. Nevertheless, in spite of the high divorce rate and resulting financial ruin, these saps are still opting for marriage. As long as couples (the majority of people) are still producing children then they’d better learn how to raise their sons into strong and solid citizens. That requires tuff love, a.k.a., D-I-S-C-I-P-L-I-N-E.

Most boys absolutely need good strict fatherly discipline and positive male role models in order to become “civilized“. The mother cannot do this job. It’s through father / son bonding that boys learn a strong work ethic and, more importantly, it’s actually the best way of teaching them respect for women. That’s why the modern breakdown of the family has produced a generation of boys who don’t study in school and who listen to musicians who refer to women as “bitches” and “hos“. Personally, I think that feminism is, in part, responsible for a moral breakdown in society that simply wouldn’t have been tolerated by my grandparents generation. You might call it “freedom“, buy I call it “infantilism”.

Women have more options than men do. A women can now be anything from a CEO to a homemaker and it’s all glorified in the name of “a women’s right to choose. However, a guys worth will always boil down to the numbers printed on his pay stub, and unfortunately those numbers have less purchasing power every passing year.

Men actually have less options today because of the overcrowded job market created by the fact that, among other things, so many women are now working. As a result, taxes are higher now, the cost of education is higher, property costs are higher., etc.,.. Therefore most people are trapped into a dead-end low pay rut with little hope of ever getting out. The Pioneers would have just moved west looking for greener pastures; but today we‘re just plane stuck in a deteriorating situation..

Like it or not, selective hiring and/or a return to conservative values WILL bring about the 50's/60's Dystopia where the severe problems of the disadvantaged masses (read: all "minorities") are glossed over by the shining success of the select few. Making women financially dependent on their husband creates the perfect circumstances for emotional, mental, and physical manipulation and abuse.

-- We’re all financially dependent on somebody. If my boss screws up then I’m on the unemployment line. Most guys, then and now, actually hand their paycheck over to their wives anyway, and any guy who doesn’t probably has a gambling problem or something. Even in the old days the women still controlled the purse strings. Today’s women can have a six figure income, but if she has low self-esteem, and if she marries a jerk then all the money in the world won’t save her from getting beaten.

Even if the family structure had remained as it was in the 1950’s it wouldn’t have stopped legitimate issues like spousal abuse and racial prejudice from being addressed. The media would have uncovered this stuff and the public would have been made aware of it. Good people would still have taken strong action.

The era where a wife could try to speak her mind, but be shot down with a threat like "to the moon!" such as in the TV show Honeymooners, and have it be seen as humorous.

-- Actually, Alice put up a good fight in those old Honeymooner episodes, and, if you’ve noticed, Ralph never actually hit her. In fact, the show usually ended with Ralph hugging his wife and saying, “Honey you’re the greatest!” So much for 1950’s gender stereotyping. Now let’s look at today’s brand of tasteless male bashing by the entertainment industry:

Since you mentioned the “Honeymooners” then did you happen to see the famous scene in the mid 1990’s chick flick called “Something To Talk About”? There’s a scene in the movie where Kyra Sedgwick knees some guy in the groin for absolutely no reason. The scene was intended to be funny but, in fact, it was actually quite graphic. It certainly got my attention because of the shock value! Nevertheless, it made Jackie Gleason‘s “Bang -- zoom -- too the moon” seem like kindergarten by comparison. Why didn’t I hear any complaints from the feminists about that one? Probably because they thought that it was just another “deadbeat dad” getting what he deserved! I guess gender violence is okay as long as it gets a laugh from the feminists. Hey, it’s just entertainment though……….

What about that T.V. commercial where this big guy is turning beat red trying to open a jar of pickles, but he just can’t do it. Then his little wife comes in, takes the jar from him and, with a flick of the wrist, she easily opens the jar. Then you see the caption: “Gym Membership? Priceless“. The obvious message here is that women are working out and they are getting strong while guys are big, fat and lazy. Today’s corporations will do just about anything in order to make guys seem like a bunch of jerks I still don’t see the logic in that type of marketing strategy? We’ve actually digressed from “Father Knows Best” down to “Father Flunks The Test”! In some of the radio ads that I’ve heard you’d think that a guy wouldn’t know how to program his VCR or do an oil change without a women being there to show him how to do it. Sometimes the male bashing in TV and radio ads can become down right insulting!

Then there‘s that stupid feminist show my wife watches called “Law and Order“. The judge is always a black women. The lawyers are ALWAYS women, but occasionally you‘ll see a black guy as a legal aid or something. However, the criminal / defendant is ALWAYS -- ALWAYS a white guy standing trial for child molestation or wife battering.
The white male stereotyping throughout this show is as blatant as it is insulting! It’s beyond obnoxious; especially in this day and age of political correctness. In fact, “Law and Order“ has become the modern day equivalent of “The Eternal Jew”! It’s downright disgusting!

Some of today’s popular entertainment has become so blatantly “anti-white male” that sometimes I can’t believe what I’m actually watching. In this day and age it’s amazing that feminist bigotry has become so widely accepted, even by white males

Here a woman drifts aimlessly on the waves of her husband's successes and failures, observing life rather than living it, not even having her own name in the outside world but being reffered to as Mrs. Fred Allbright. You say you are against this, but the more you segregate the sexes in both roles and environments, the more inequality and invisibility for the women it creates. I'll take market saturation over oppression of personal freedoms and identities anyday of the week.

-- Marriage is a commitment that requires time and sacrifice. The women who I’ve known (some college educated) who’ve been in long term happy marriages have had to either modify, or give up, their career goals. Any women who views this as “slavery”, “a loss of control and identity” or “being herded like cattle” should never get married. Personally, I feel that most “career women” have one foot out the door before they even walk down the isle, and their marriages usually crash and burn. If raising kids, trusting another person and supporting your husband’s career seems degrading to you then good luck in you’re search for the perfect “Mr. Mom” However, you’ll probably never last with a real man if you carry those attitudes into the relationship. Understand, allot of problems can be avoided if you just take plenty of time to get to know the guy really well before agreeing to marry him.

If a homemaker can’t find anything more productive to do with her time than to watch soap operas then she’ll never make it in the business world either. She could start a home based business and work it around her kids schedule. That’s certainly a better alternative than slaving her life away at some McJob.

Take care,
Mr Niceguy

[Mulan]

(Here's more replies for you, ThaiBri)

OK, you do realize that you've lost any rational credibility a long time ago, and are now resorting to wild correlations, assumed gender roles, and pseudo-religious babble that blames everything you deem wrong with the world on women without any logical patterns of causation. Just making sure.

Nothing in a case of some kind of abuse. However, what I've seen mostly is two stupid parents breaking up over petty nonsense, and then trashing the needs of the kids in the process. Since when were the parents needs more important than the needs of the kids?

As Fallout2man said a while back, divorce is less taboo now and people actually have the financial freedom to opt for it without wrecking their lives and reputations. You don't need all-out abuse to warrant a divorce. Sometimes people change - both people - and just stop getting along or can't stand each other. Often, even though a woman works full time, the husband still expects her to take care of the kids and do household chores when she comes home. They fight and argue and make each other's lives hell, and that is no environment for kids to be in. It's not that the needs of the parents are more important than the kids, it's that the needs of the parents are inseporable from the needs of the kids.

In families when both partners need to work, this is more likely due to both of them being under pressure. Normally I wouldn't have to explain this, but you're special. Both of them being under financial pressure does not mean the woman has to stay home; that is not a rational argument. If you want to reduce the pressure, you could have one of them stay home, and then only one person would be under pressure. If a couple wants to go that route, they may choose amongst themselves who can stay home, and this choice would likely be based on their competitive potential in the job market (ie: abilities/qualifications) rather than their sex. But there are just as many couples who don't need dual-income but both choose to work anyway because they enjoy what they do, or how it makes them feel to be financially sufficient. Either way, in 1996, only 55% of employed U.S. women were married and living with their husbands.

Actually, the fact that today's generation of boys can't keep up with the girls in school tells me that today's single moms and today's feminized uni-sex educational system are a total failure when it comes to raising and disciplining boys. These statistics tell you all that you need to know about the evils of frivilous divorce and about the failures of single moms.

Naturally, if boys are doing (slightly) worse in school, blaming the boys is out of the question, we should blame absolutely everyone except the boys themselves!! Are the boys really doing worse? Or are the girls just doing better? Boys as a group are doing slightly worse than girls as a group, but that's not the whole picture. What's actually happening is that there are more boys on either extreme of the spectrum, and there are more girls in the average of the spectrum. So girls are doing average or higher, and boys are more erratic. Girls and boys actually don't learn that differently unless they are socialized to, and there is much more variation in individual learning styles within a group than between groups.

But you know what? None of this matters, because what you presented between boys and single/working mothers is a CORRELATIONAL relationship, not a CAUSATIONAL relationship. Correlation does not prove causation, and any attempt at proving something with pure correlation is fundamentally flawed.

So, I get it now! Divorced working women don't actually give a damn if their sons fail in school because the fathers were thrown out of the family. In reality the only things that really matter are her paycheck and her loser boyfriend.

Every guy I know who's been raised by a single mother has nothing but utmost respect for her and all women, and more often than not hates his so-called father's guts. How dare you suggest working women don't give a crap about their kids! If those guys heard you talk that way about their mother they'd rip your head off. If there was no equal opportunity for all people to get a job regardless or race or sex, they would be living on the street off handouts.

Maybe all that matters to you is your paycheck if you would even think that is what's on a working woman's mind. In what world does a parent working equate with not caring about their kids? Do fathers work because they don't give a damn about taking care of their kids? (in your world, that's what it sounds like) Oh, they have a woman do it. What a convenient copout.

Children raised in dual-income households are also completely supportive of working mothers. The cognitive development of children who have been in decent daycare is similar to children cared by stay-at-home parents. But on top of that, they tend to be more cooperative, confident, independent, less sexist, and able to relate to other people's points of view. Infants who spend time in a day-care center are just as attached to their mothers as children whose mothers do not work outside the home. (I can reference all the studies if you like)

Feminism is an evil that is destroying our society. You either recognize "evil" when you see it, or you don't. You obviously don't!

I don't even believe in absolute "good" and "evil." But if I did, then people who hold your views would be "evil" in my mind. People who are willing to sacrifice other people's rights, freedoms, and identities without forefiting their own to further their twisted goals. People who want to squelch all self-expression from the world and mold everyone into nice cookie-cutter stereotypes put together on long assembly lines in one big happy baby-making factory. The difference between your views and mine is that mine allow for your ideal nuclear family, whereas yours don't allow for anything else to be viable. The children of this world are no longer limited by their race or sex, not shaped by any ideals except their own, and have total freedom to be all they can be. They rise and fall by their own efforts, and choose their own destinies. If that kind of freedom scares you, that is your loss, but you have no right to deny others of it.

A father staying home and taking care of the kids sets a bad example; especially if any of those kids happen to be his sons. Who would you rather see your boy idolize? Davy Crockett or Richard Simmons? I really hope that you answered, 'Davy Crockett"?

I'd rather they not idolize anyone and just be themselves, certainly not look up to some hotshot "Injun fighter." Children have been shown to develop better social and cognitive skills if the father does a high proportion of the child care. Two caring adults being actively involved int heir children's lives benefits both the kids and the parents. And what exactly are you saying, that if boys aren't raised with the "discipline" and "tough love" of a father they start behaving like weak girls? That just shows you that sexes aren't inherently much of anything, and are shaped by the way they are raised. If you "disciplined" girls through "tough love," you'd get the same work ethic and etc of a guy raised that way. Thank you for proving my point. Mothers not capable of this? You must be out of your mind if you don't think mothers can be strict, firm, and demanding. Frankly, I think a mother needs to discipline you, because you don't show any of the respect for women that you claim father/son bonding teaches.

Also thank you contradicting yourself by saying that today's men wanting to sit around and have women take care of them is disgraceful, yet a woman doing the same is ideal. A few pages back you said you'd enjoy being a woman in a society where the husband was expected to take care of you, and also said you'd love to see women try to be the breadwinners of the family while the men can sit back and take care of the kids, but now you seem apalled by both concepts. But I guess it's not really a contradiction, since really you don't want women to have a voice outside (or even inside?) the home at all. I rest my case. O.o

What about that T.V. commercial where this big guy is turning beat red trying to open a jar of pickles, but he just can't do it. Then his little wife comes in, takes the jar from him and, with a flick of the wrist, she easily opens the jar. Then you see the caption: "Gym Membership? Priceless". The obvious message here is that women are working out and they are getting strong while guys are big, fat and lazy. Today's corporations will do just about anything in order to make guys seem like a bunch of jerks I still don't see the logic in that type of marketing strategy?

It's actually a joke/reversed-brainwashing against the countless commercials in the past that had men showing clueless women what to do. Same goes for black women as judges, female lawyers, male assitants, and white male defendents (in the past, it would be the exact other way around). Neither is right, but it's a kind of balance. Eventually it'll even out.

The rest of your comments pretty much speak for themselves, and either I have already addressed them in the past, or I'd rather not comment on them so as to preserve their pristine bigotry for future generations to laugh at.

So not only did I have to defend women in the military, women in the workforce, but now women's right to vote... wow, that's just awesome! I daresay I'm pretty amazed it went this far. Finally the truth comes out. "It's either us or them"? That's priceless. I dare you to stamp out all the women. See what happens to your little boys club. But wait, y'all will probably beat each other to a pulp or hang underwear on flagpoles before you learn to cooperate on anything, at least according to your description of military school. You can rant about the evils of women all you want, but the rest of us will be forming a harmonious society where the so-called "war of the sexes" is a distant memory.

The only thing that really bothers me though, is that I was the only one defending my position (not counting people who posted a couple of times and left). Not even the women on this board (few as there are) said anything. Which makes me wonder what everybody else thinks, or if they think this is a silly and self-evident topic as I do. I guess it doesn't really matter, though.

[Thai Bri]

My feelings are hurt now.

[Mulan]

But why? I thought you wanted to see how many more thingies I can reply to

[Thai Bri]

I do. Chalk up another one.

[squidd]

hi mulan...

i hope you don't mind my asking (after all, we're all using computer nicknames here)...

why is it that you always seem so angry at men? i imagine you to be a strong, intelligent, and yes, attractive woman who is both successful and fulfilled. the only thing that doesn't fit into the picture is all the male anger? i gues someone as smart as you wouldn't find it hard to hook up with a smart guy and just live happily ever after. but here you are ranting about the merits of divorce.

just asking. peace.

[Mulan]

why is it that you always seem so angry at men? i imagine you to be a strong, intelligent, and yes, attractive woman who is both successful and fulfilled. the only thing that doesn't fit into the picture is all the male anger? i gues someone as smart as you wouldn't find it hard to hook up with a smart guy and just live happily ever after. but here you are ranting about the merits of divorce.

I'm actually not angry at men. I don't demonize men or say 1/4th of them are rapists or that they are the root of all violence and all that. As you saw before, I know women are just as capable of all those things as men. None of the men I know are this way, and they are all great people who have normal ups and downs in their relationships yet respect their partners as equals. I like to think that the majority of men are for true equality between the sexes and equal opportunity in the workplace, and even women's right to vote. That is why it makes me angry when somebody expressedly says they are against that, because I had to fight against that kind of brainwashing for much of my life. I am angry at those kinds of men, yes. It took me a long time to appreciate that they are a minority, and that the majority of men are thinking, feeling, complex individuals with diverse personalities that aren't limited by cultural stereotypes about themselves or other people.

As for divorce, it's unfortunate if things come to that. Drastic things can happen in life, things you could never see coming, and people can just plain change until you don't recognize them anymore. If things do come to that, and the two people simply can't stand each other, then I think they should definitely get a divorce because that kind of environment is not helping either them or the kids (if they have kids). I just feel that's the most intelligent thing to do in that kind of situation. I don't think anyone should feel trapped in a hopeless situation.

[Thai Bri]

It seems obvious to me that oyu have these anti male instincts without even acknowledging it. Talk about being in denial.

[Mulan]

It seems obvious to me that oyu have these anti male instincts without even acknowledging it. Talk about being in denial.

I admitted to having bad experiences with men in the past. Not with friends or boyfriends, but with males in authority. Because of that I did have considerable prejudices against men. I don't anymore, though. I never wanted more opportunities than men in either athletics or the workplace. I've always felt insulted by any lower standards/requirements placed on me, or any special treatment. I certainly want men to be able to vote. I kinda felt that I always stressed equality and more opportunities for everybody in my statements, and that if some men were bigoted assholes in the past, it wasn't anything inherent to the male sex but had to do with how they and the women were socialized. Could you please point out what you felt was being angry at today's general male population?

[squidd]

I'm actually not angry at men. I don't demonize men or say 1/4th of them are rapists or that they are the root of all violence and all that.

in that case, can i ask you out on a date?

[Mulan]

I dunno, where do you live?

[Thai Bri]

I admitted to having bad experiences with men in the past. Not with friends or boyfriends, but with males in authority. Because of that I did have considerable prejudices against men. I don't anymore, though. I never wanted more opportunities than men in either athletics or the workplace. I've always felt insulted by any lower standards/requirements placed on me, or any special treatment. I certainly want men to be able to vote. I kinda felt that I always stressed equality and more opportunities for everybody in my statements, and that if some men were bigoted assholes in the past, it wasn't anything inherent to the male sex but had to do with how they and the women were socialized. Could you please point out what you felt was being angry at today's general male population?

Nope.

Just chalk up another to me.........

[Mulan]

(quick recap of thread for those that missed it)

mrniceguy148: women don't have any power.
Mulan: yes they do.
mrniceguy148: well, women shouldn't have any power.
Mulan: you're saying women shouldn't have any power.
mrniceguy148: no, I am saying women shouldn't have any power.
Mulan: but you are saying women shouldn't have any power!
mrniceguy148: yes, yes I am.
Mulan: I knew it!!
mrniceguy: ...?
Mulan: .......!!!

[Thai Bri]

That makes more sense than most of the posts on here. And it makes no sense at all.....