Ariadne Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 Hi Curmudgeon, Does that mean you're an alpha-woman, Ariadne? I work, make a good living, bring it all home, pay the bills, handle the major investments and savings and my wife, now that she's retired, takes care of the home as well as saving and investing some of her pension. That would be my most ideal setting ever! I want a man to support me and I'd do the womanly things. Just like my mom. My mother never worked and my father provided. She keeps a wonderful house, cooks home meals for lunch and dinner, takes care of the garden, etc etc. Are you saying that the man should work, earn and turn it all over to the woman? Just curious. Would even be more curious to know where you'd find one like that who could still be considered a man. I think that women messed the whole thing up with the women's liberation crap. That is pure crap. Women had it good for the past 4,000 years no less, and they went and decided to be the mega-women, with careers etc. Now everyone is stressed, taking Prozac, kids living in daycare, fast food, houses are not kept tidy for the most part (no time), women in their 30s single and desperate for a partner to have kids, they didn't care to "get married" you know, busy with their careers and all, divorces, (too much stress) and all the psychological disorders of late. Women still could have interests other than housekeeping. Say, in the 1,800s women played musical instruments, painted, did sports, and other leisure activities. Those were the times. You're right on all counts about Touché. Quite remarkable, isn't she? Yes. Ariadne
Touche Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 ...you can't get within arm's length of one. Touche'
Touche Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 Thanks, Ariadne. And I can't tell you how much of what you said I agree with.
Author Curmudgeon Posted November 25, 2007 Author Posted November 25, 2007 Hi Curmudgeon, Does that mean you're an alpha-woman, Ariadne? I work, make a good living, bring it all home, pay the bills, handle the major investments and savings and my wife, now that she's retired, takes care of the home as well as saving and investing some of her pension. That would be my most ideal setting ever! I want a man to support me and I'd do the womanly things. Just like my mom. My mother never worked and my father provided. She keeps a wonderful house, cooks home meals for lunch and dinner, takes care of the garden, etc etc. Are you saying that the man should work, earn and turn it all over to the woman? Just curious. Would even be more curious to know where you'd find one like that who could still be considered a man. I think that women messed the whole thing up with the women's liberation crap. That is pure crap. Women had it good for the past 4,000 years no less, and they went and decided to be the mega-women, with careers etc. Now everyone is stressed, taking Prozac, kids living in daycare, fast food, houses are not kept tidy for the most part (no time), women in their 30s single and desperate for a partner to have kids, they didn't care to "get married" you know, busy with their careers and all, divorces, (too much stress) and all the psychological disorders of late. Women still could have interests other than housekeeping. Say, in the 1,800s women played musical instruments, painted, did sports, and other leisure activities. Those were the times. You're right on all counts about Touché. Quite remarkable, isn't she? Yes. Ariadne Your ideal goes back to the 40s and 50s in this country. While it may have appeared to work well, much of that was only on the surface. Some women had to work, mostly the young, single, widowed, etc. and they were decidedly second-class citizens in the workplace. Girls were discouraged from taking too great an interest in math and science and you certainly wouldn't find women in boardrooms or, for the most part, politics. Pay for women was significantly below that for men and if a woman wanted credit, forget it. They were told to come back and bring their husband. Remember, too, Ariadne, that was the generation of men and women who raised the generation of the 60s and 70s with all the social upheaval, counter-culture, wide-spread drug use and a very bad war. If it all had worked well it would have been a nice alternative for women who wanted to stay home, keep the house and raise children. Today, most families need a second income for bare-bones survival. I see neither extreme, the 50s model or what we have now, as being ideal. I think that would likely fall somewhere in the middle. By tbe way, the ex stayed at home, raised thje children and took care of the home for 25 years. hen she decided I wasn't good enough for her. That's why she's the ex. Now, she has nothing and has to live with one of our children and his wife. meanwhile, I earn almost twice what I did when married to her and no longer have children at home and those expenses. Whose life do you think is better? It takes a careful balancing act. Let's face it, Ariadne. Supposing I was single I could very easily support you and provide you with a very nice, comfortable lifestyle. But that wouldn't necessarily make you happy with me nor me with you. There's a lot more to life than mere sustenance and survival.
2sunny Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 If you were single, would you support me? :lmao::lmao:
Woggle Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 I can't believe I am sounding like a feminist but the gist of women's lib was a good thing. Women wer shut out of oppourtunities that men that for granted and had every right to to rally for equal rights. Men and women should be treated equally under the law in society on all levels. Where feminism went wrong was when it was hijacked by a group of women who did not want equality but wanted to make themselves the new oppressors. Not only did they hurt men but they hurt women who want be taking seriously in society and treated as an equal instead of playing the constant victim card to emotionally extort people in order to get what they want.
Touche Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 How many men does one woman need to support her?
Woggle Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 A grown woman should be able to support herself just as a grown man should.
Touche Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 I can't believe I am sounding like a feminist but the gist of women's lib was a good thing. Women wer shut out of oppourtunities that men that for granted and had every right to to rally for equal rights. Men and women should be treated equally under the law in society on all levels. Where feminism went wrong was when it was hijacked by a group of women who did not want equality but wanted to make themselves the new oppressors. Not only did they hurt men but they hurt women who want be taking seriously in society and treated as an equal instead of playing the constant victim card to emotionally extort people in order to get what they want. I actually agree with a lot of this. But I don't agree that they hurt women. Not women like me anyway. Women like me, and there are many of us, don't play the victim card...ever. I get what I want without having to resort to such tactics. I use my brain and my wit. Yeah, some of us are actually smart AND not evil. Imagine that?
Touche Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 A grown woman should be able to support herself just as a grown man should. Absolutely.
Lizzie60 Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 How many men does one woman need to support her? It depends how 'high maintenance' she is...
Woggle Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 I actually agree with a lot of this. But I don't agree that they hurt women. Not women like me anyway. Women like me, and there are many of us, don't play the victim card...ever. I get what I want without having to resort to such tactics. I use my brain and my wit. Yeah, some of us are actually smart AND not evil. Imagine that? Many men have become victims of the manhaters and in turn take it out on all women or they are less likely to take a woman seriously. Most hardcore misogynosts are that way because of something that has happened to them. They make it harder for women who are trying to make it on their merits and not on gender to be taken seriously. They may not hate you but in many ways they help reenforce the views of male chauvinists who don't believe women are equals.
Ariadne Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 Hi, Your ideal goes back to the 40s and 50s in this country. Yes. I always wished I was born in the 50s. One of my favorite shows on TV is Leave it to Beaver. I see pictures taken at that time, with men in suits and women in pretty dresses and I think it's so wonderful. Even movies from the 50s. Niagara with Marilyn Monroe comes to mind. Places were not crowded, people strolling on the streets, everything was happier and prettier. Now is just rush, traffic, hectic stress. While it may have appeared to work well, much of that was only on the surface. It worked fine for my grandmas too. They both kept houses and didn't work. My grandma knitted, made home made pasta, my other one paper flowers etc. Some women had to work, mostly the young, single, widowed, etc. and they were decidedly second-class citizens in the workplace. And then you have some of those. Kind of like me now. But most women got married then, at least that was high up in their preferences. Girls were discouraged from taking too great an interest in math and science and you certainly wouldn't find women in boardrooms or, for the most part, politics. I still believe that women would be much happier working in things that have to do with their nature. Working with children, being teachers, nurses. But that is just my opinion. Pay for women was significantly below that for men and if a woman wanted credit, forget it. They were told to come back and bring their husband. Oh, and then they decided to be Astronauts so they made good money. Good thinking women! Today, most families need a second income for bare-bones survival. I think that is the worst part of all. Now men expect you to work. Otherwise you'd all be dirt poor and never be able to afford a house or anything on one income. It's really terrible. I think real men are the ones that can provide for a woman and children if you ask me. I see neither extreme, the 50s model or what we have now, as being ideal. I think that would likely fall somewhere in the middle. I don't know. I just want to marry some rich guy and that's it. But then sure, dream on. I earn almost twice what I did when married to her and no longer have children at home and those expenses. Whose life do you think is better? I think it'd have been better if you made a good choice about your partner before getting married so that you wouldn't have to get divorced. But then, that is in an ideal world. Now she is a lonely older woman without a partner. Good thing she has the children. Supposing I was single I could very easily support you and provide you with a very nice, comfortable lifestyle. But that wouldn't necessarily make you happy with me nor me with you. There's a lot more to life than mere sustenance and survival. Well, I still believe in soulmates and that kind of stuff. Kind of like you and your wife that you say you light up a room when you walk in. Ariadne
Touche Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 Many men have become victims of the manhaters and in turn take it out on all women or they are less likely to take a woman seriously. Most hardcore misogynosts are that way because of something that has happened to them. They make it harder for women who are trying to make it on their merits and not on gender to be taken seriously. They may not hate you but in many ways they help reenforce the views of male chauvinists who don't believe women are equals. I understand that. But women like me, don't bother with men like that. We can instantly recognize them and dismiss them. There are enough good men in this world that we don't have to waste our time with the damaged ones. It's just that simple.
Woggle Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 I understand that. But women like me, don't bother with men like that. We can instantly recognize them and dismiss them. There are enough good men in this world that we don't have to waste our time with the damaged ones. It's just that simple. This is true but I think that manhating feminists hurt women who try to go into politics. I saw a bumper sticker on a feminist board that said when Hillary is elected you men are going to get it. Do they actually think something like that will help Hillary get elected? I actually don't believe that Hillary is anti-male or she endorses sentiments like that but is the type of things that will bury her campaign. Then you have false rape and abuse accusations that hurt women who really are abused and raped. That is why the female judge ripped into my ex when she tried to accuse me of abuse.
Touche Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 It depends how 'high maintenance' she is... Not really. It really depends on how good the woman is. A below average woman needs lots of men. An above average woman can find one above average man. And one above average man equals MANY below average men..trust me on that one, honey.
Touche Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 This is true but I think that manhating feminists hurt women who try to go into politics. I saw a bumper sticker on a feminist board that said when Hillary is elected you men are going to get it. Do they actually think something like that will help Hillary get elected? I actually don't believe that Hillary is anti-male or she endorses sentiments like that but is the type of things that will bury her campaign. Then you have false rape and abuse accusations that hurt women who really are abused and raped. That is why the female judge ripped into my ex when she tried to accuse me of abuse. I don't disagree with any of that. There are just as many damaged and evil women as there are men. I've been abused by my ex. And thank god we didn't have a child together as he had power and control and could have easily lied and manipulated and used the system to his advantage (and my disadvantage.)
Lizzie60 Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 This is true but I think that manhating feminists hurt women who try to go into politics. I saw a bumper sticker on a feminist board that said when Hillary is elected you men are going to get it. Do they actually think something like that will help Hillary get elected? I actually don't believe that Hillary is anti-male or she endorses sentiments like that but is the type of things that will bury her campaign. Then you have false rape and abuse accusations that hurt women who really are abused and raped. That is why the female judge ripped into my ex when she tried to accuse me of abuse. come on now.. do you base your life on bumper stickers... those are funny bumper stickers you know...
Woggle Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 come on now.. do you base your life on bumper stickers... those are funny bumper stickers you know... If you don't think Hillary's opponents will exploit that you don't know much about American politics.
Author Curmudgeon Posted November 25, 2007 Author Posted November 25, 2007 I didn't know you cared. If I was single I might just have a whole bevy, but I doubt it. I certainly didn't the last time I was single.
crazy_grl Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 I still believe that women would be much happier working in things that have to do with their nature. Working with children, being teachers, nurses. But that is just my opinion. Ariadne, I understand where you're coming from, but I would most certainly not be happier working with children or being a nurse. I have a scientific mind and the things that you think are wonderful about the 50's sound horrific to me. I enjoy cooking a nice meal, but the 1950's mentality that that's all I'm capable of just makes me shudder. I hope you find a guy who shares your desire for that traditional kind of relationship though. About the original topic, I'm glad things are looking up for you and your W, Curm. I was shocked when I saw the original post.
Ariadne Posted November 25, 2007 Posted November 25, 2007 Hi, I enjoy cooking a nice meal, but the 1950's mentality that that's all I'm capable of just makes me shudder. Nobody believed that that was all women were capable of. Obvioulsy they weren't. I hope you find a guy who shares your desire for that traditional kind of relationship though. Nah, I'm not going to find anything. Every guy I like doesn't like me, and that's not going to change. It's been like that for 40 years. I was shocked when I saw the original post. (Yeah, me too) Ariadne
Author Curmudgeon Posted November 25, 2007 Author Posted November 25, 2007 Even movies from the 50s. Niagara with Marilyn Monroe comes to mind. Places were not crowded, people strolling on the streets, everything was happier and prettier. Now is just rush, traffic, hectic stress. Now she is a lonely older woman without a partner. Good thing she has the children. The U.S. population now is almost double what it was in 1950. I know. I was there. As for the ex, she only has one child. The other four either want very little or nothing to do with her. They're all adults. My wife and I are the ones who have good relationships with all of them and all my grandchildren. It's very sad!
Author Curmudgeon Posted November 25, 2007 Author Posted November 25, 2007 Not really. It really depends on how good the woman is. A below average woman needs lots of men. An above average woman can find one above average man. And one above average man equals MANY below average men..trust me on that one, honey. One good man can take care of one good woman, and visa versa. The women who need more, just like the men who do, are rather pathetic to my way of thinking and I avoid them.
Recommended Posts