Re: BBC-Women's health fuelling poverty


Mark Sobolewski wrote:

> In article <1130024875.209085.129580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > > In article <1129958069.048703.311260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > "Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > mark_sobolewski@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > Heidi Graw wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > There are pockets of this philosophy in place in the states where
> > > > > > > successful career women earn 6 figure salaries. You do have a
> > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > that it's a largely Patriarchial Christian notion to protect the
> > > > > > > weak:
> > > > > > > Such powerful women generally turn out to be materialistic and
> > > > > > > selfish
> > > > > > > and even vote Conservative in huge numbers not for Christian
> > > > > > > reasons,
> > > > > > > but because they resent the notion of paying taxes for poorer
> > > > > > > women's
> > > > > > > children.
> > > >
> > > > Most women earning six figure incomes, are educated women, and most
> > > > educated women are liberals, Mark.
> > >
> > > Actually, it's the other way around: Most women with
> > > a bachelors degree are Republicans with lesser educated
> > > and ultra educated women tending to be liberal.
> >
> > :-) So,the more education a woman has, the more liberal she becomes.
>
> Er, no. Middle educated women generally are very conservative
> while upper-educated women tend to be liberal. Note, upper
> education does not automatically translate into higher earnings:
> Masters degrees in English Lit. often result in women working
> as editors for $20 an hour.

But, Mark...I wasn't speaking of income here; I was speaking of
education. You, yourself offered the information (good or not) that
the higher educated women tend toward liberal thought.


>
> > Good to know. In any event,there is a much larger percentage of women
> > who vote liberal than men. And more women are going to college these
> > days.
>
> Yeah, nice to know that America has a healthy supply of lawyers
> and women's studies grads. :-)

Whatever they choose as their vocation, they vote, no?
>
> Hmmm, question: If more women vote liberal than men, how did
> GW win? Hmmm, maybe someone else votes. I wonder who... :-)

Yes indeed. Voter fraud is the way Mark wants to win elections. I'm
not surprised tho.

> There's a male voting gap as well and Dems can count on
> losing many more elections while moderate women swing
> to the right and men stay right where they are.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, eh Mark. Perhaps with the hatred
of Bush we're swinging back in the right direction, the left. :-)

> > To call women "greedy" in any way, as compared to men, is utterly
> > laughable, especially as women spend so much time doing the unpaid work
> > at home.
> > >
> > > That's incredible! When I was a bachelor, I cleaned
> > > my apartment too and nobody paid me.
> >
> > No, but you had no house slave then, to do it for you, Mark.
>
> So liberated women can get their own "house slave", yes?

Why? Women are more moral than that, Mark. They don't need slaves.
:-)

> They just have to be willing to give up some of
> their precious money and accept a breadwinning role.
> Boo hoo! Why can't others do "unpaid" work in exchange for
> nothing? Damn Patriarchs! :-)

Poor Mark, is laughable as he laments his own fate, and now he probably
has an idea that his marriage is also flagging.
>
>Today, if your Irina divorces you, you will likely owe some alimony or rehab pay
> unless she is already making more money than you. :-)
>
> I don't spend a lot of time worrying about that.

I don't blame you; I wouldn't want to dwell on hypocrisy either.

She considers me a liberal. :-)

She doesn't know what the word means, Mark. But I'm sure, by now,
she's learned a few words and phrases, like greedy, pig, homesick, cost
of airfare to Russia, citizenship, number of years, etc.
>
> During the 80's, many men including myself bought into
> the dichotomy of playing it safe and sticking with women
> who didn't have children or had careers so if a divorce
> happened, they'd be less likely to suffer shock effects.

Mark, no one wanted you, dear. Go toward the light. :-)

> However, that's clearly living in fear and what happened
> was that men came to the conclusion that they should
> just have the kind of wife that gives them greatest
> satisfaction.

No, Mark...only rejects decided to buy wives.


If a wife is constantly complaining that
he isn't sharing household chores, he's going to
be miserable and wish for a divorce anyway.


That's true. So why bother at all, dear? Wouldn't it be better to
stay blessedly single? I mean, in the end your Irina is now an
American wife.

All the men> I know my age have settled down. Without exception.
> Even if they lack social graces and skills. Heck,
> even if they aren't fantastic wage earners.

So, either all the "men you know" are better than you at finding wives
here at home or all the "men you know" are married to purchased brides?
Which is it?


> > I also paid rent. Should I have gotten an award for this? :-)
> >
> > Mark, it's not the state or a company who will pay for your Irina's
> > loss of career; it will be you.
>
> Which is it? Did "Irina" come to the states for opportunity
> and to find work or is she making a sacrifice? :-)

What makes you vainly imagine the two are mutually exclusive?

> In the meantime, you have a point: I'm taking a risk.
> That's right. That's why I have someone in my life.
> Your agenda focuses a lot on German rescues for single
> women because such women largely wind up alone because
> they don't want to risk precious money or rejection.

My "agenda" calls for nothing of the sort. Like a few very savy
Germans, around 1936-37 and a few in /38, I'm leaving the US until
things settle down here. I plan to retire very soon now, much sooner
than I had expected.
>
> > > > I suppose if women really> were as greedy as men, they'd walk away from
> > > > their families right now and start working for income.
> > >
> > > Indeed, that's what mommy dearest sometimes does when they
> > > dump their children along with recyclables at the firestation
> > > because the child would be safer with someone else than
> > > in their loving care.
> >
> > But those cases are so very rare, they could be inscribed on the head
> > of a pin.
> > (edit)
>
> Oh, so I guess those children don't matter then. How nice.

It's a matter of comparison, Mark. When there are no children, there
are no children to support, and neonates dropped off at firestations
get adopted. Not supporting your children is a much greater outrage.
>
> > > > > I'll grant you a half concession in that powerful men
> > > > > who are often idealized by history often turn out, upon
> > > > > closer inspection, to be ruthless and stingy.
> > > >
> > > > Not only those men, Mark, but men simply do not do their fair share of
> > > > the unpaid work that must be done.
> > >
> > > Usually because they're too busy doing the paid work> and sharing that
> > > income with other family members.
> >
> > If they don't do that part of the unpaid work (their share) then women
> > cannot put in as much time on their paid work, and that will have to be
> > addressed if there is a divorce,no?
>
> Of course, are these women willing to see him put in less
> PAID work (that he shares with her) so that he can do more
> "unpaid" work while she works longer to share the income
> with him? :-) (Howz that dessert? :-)

Again, upon divorce those issues will out, and courts don't think it's
right that one spouse got to build a career on the back (see sacrifice)
of the other spouse.

> > > This ties into our choices discussion: If women wanted
> > > to do the paid work and have a liberated, but poor
> > > non-sexist man they have that opportunity. Apparently,
> > > such women prefer to do the "unpaid" work.
> >
> > Today's women seem to want college, Mark...so they can have better
> > opportunities on their own. And let's face it, today's men are looking as good to women as they once did. :-) Perhaps women simply have less of a vested interest in marriage.
>
> That sentence is about as plausible. Many women (and men
> for that matter) go to college as a form of the 13th grade:
> They don't have anything else better to do. I remember
> riding the train next to a pleasant college sophmore
> co-ed whose a film major. Oh really, I asked? Had she
> seen Run Lola Run? Or White? Or even 2010 or Casablanca?
> No, she admitted. She just felt that this was the major
> that she had the most interest in but she wasn't
> passionate nor had an idea of what she was going to do
> after college. Heck, many freshmen today have no
> majors whatsoever! Not to say that's a bad thing, but
> this implies that many young women simply aren't
> as driven as you state.

The FACT that more of them are going to college is an amazing thing
Mark. I don't care if you find it amazing. :-) And, whether they are
driven or not, they will tend toward better jobs when they graduate.
Now it seems like YOU are looking for the German education system to
help? ;-)

> > And if men aren't there doing their fair
> > share, I suggest they'll get sidelined.
>
> Don't worry: they got the message loud and clear.
> Perhaps that may explain why so many of them
> don't mind "playing the field" and having sex
> and fun during their college years and even afterward.
> Hey, they aren't in a rush and don't have a biological
> clock... :-)

Sure they do, Mark. Men have bio clocks just like women. As they age
the quality of their sperm deteriorates, and they don't want to be
fathers in their dotage. Whereas, any woman can have a child while
young, and raise that child while working on her career if she likes.
Perhaps she'll even have plenty of time to have more kids later. Or
freeze for later.


> > In that regard alone, they are stingy.
> >
> > Women may not have the same incentive to marry poor men who don't want
> > to work.
>
> I don't recall saying anything about women marrying poor men
> who don't want to work. I was laughing that they don't
> want to marry poor men who perform "unpaid" work either. :-)

You seem to be assuming that men who don't have paid work DO the unpaid
work. :-) Never assume. :-)

> > > This is a good example of you applying special standards
> > > in situations where you know sexism exists. Women choose
> > > and even demand that men produce income and you then
> > > argue that the men are stingy because they don't do
> > > the woman's work in addition.
> >
> > Not at all, Mark. I'm suggesting that the unpaid work should be
> > shared.
>
> Except that you leave out that men do the lions share of
> providing income. If you were concerned about sexism,
> you might have noticed that.

I'm A-ok with a co-contribution of income. I think what is disquieting
to you is that you intrinsically know women have a much harder time
finding comparable work making that good income, because men tend to
hire men.

> > If a SAH spouse is getting paid, by all means she can do the
> > housework. Or, if she is not paid, she will likely be reimbursed upon
> > divorce.
>
> Or if she's sitting around at the pool ordering servants around,
> she'll be paid even more. Clearly, you don't mind sexist,
> chivalrous entitlements when the beneficiaries are mostly
> women.

I think you should get what you deserve, Mark. I also think that women
who marry for money marry men who marry for looks and shallow begets
shallow.
>
> Indeed, it is pretty funny how some of these women viewed
> support from such men as an entitlement and frustrated
> when men didn't jump for their offer to 'sacrifice' for him.
> Ultimately, women who want this lifestyle increasely need
> to EARN it. That means learning to keep their mouth
> shut about their feminist studies. :-)

If you're suggesting that double dippers do that, suggest away. I have
no particular problem with women who keep their mouths shut until the
divorce. :-) Look at Ivana. :-) She was a quiet gal for many years.


> > Also, each person today generally seeks some meaningful work
> > outside the home.
>
> And housefraus can have such a life if not better than
> most people because they wouldn't be limited to such
> endeavours that paid a living wage.

Again, it's not women's fault that they don't get hired or promoted on
the same basis as men, Mark. Surely you've heard of rampant invideous
discrimination.
>
> > Women who are expected to do that as well as all the
> > unpaid work may be filing for divorce more often.
> >
> > If you were truly interested in an egalitarian agenda, you would hold
> > such women accountable for their sexist choices.
> >
> > I don't see any sexism in choosing to stay home and care for ones
> > family, but I do see sexism if the parties are placed in unequal
> > financial situations after the couple decide what is best for their
> > family.
>
> So I guess the ability to gestate children and look
> after them isn't all that market valuable or the subject of
> envy for men, eh? :-)

It's not a matter of "envy"; it's a matter of reality. Men simply
can't gestate and deliver, nor do men like getting regular sex at the
local dog'n suds. First, it's very risky and secondly, it can get
expensive. Finally, most men do want relationships; even you did.

> >
> (edit)
>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > But that said, let's be intellectually honest here: The vast
> > > > > majority of successful men judge their success by their
> > > > > simple accumulation of wealth, power, and security while
> > > > > the very nature of femininty is about making almost
> > > > > gluttonous _displays_ of personal wealth consumption simply to
> > > > > impress other women.
> > > >
> > > > That's ridiculous. It is men who like to show off their toys and
> > > > yachts, and mansions much more than women.
> > >
> > > But like I said, these things are largely practical and by
> > > their nature to demonstrate their willingness to share
> > > this wealth with the opposite sex.
> >
> > Mark, they are NOT practical. Sports cars and fancy boats are not at
> > all practical.
>
> Have you ever been in either? :-)

Yes.

>
> Sports cars are handy for getting around in traffic.
> Fancy boats provide a pleasant way to travel similar
> to a cruise.

No reasonable person would describe those things a practical. Sorry.
You lost the point.


> Perhaps you confuse the term "practical" with "utilitarian."
>
> > You're really funny, here. Men buy many more toys than
> > women from Jet Skis to yachts.
>
> They not only buy them, they also often spend a lot
> of time building and maintaining them. In some cases,
> the men find the maintenance more satisfying than the actual
> use.

Mark, you lost the point already.

> > > In fact, smart wealthy men I know largely showed off
> > > these things to lure golddiggers in and then had sex
> > > without spending a dime on them!
> >
> > I don't believe you know any wealthy men. Sorry.
>
> I'm crushed. :-)
>
> > (edit of Mark's tall tales)
>
> I'm not hiding behind recursive pseudonym's Parg. I've
> invited you over for tea several times if you dared
> to expose your fabulous figure to scrutiny and you've
> declined so far.

No matter how many times you invite me, I'm not believing your tall
tales, Mark. Give up already.
>
> > Heck that's where the> phrase 'trophy wife' comes from a man who
> > likes to let people know how> rich he is by the toy on his arm.
> > >
> > > Indeed. Such "generous" women as Martha Stewart would never
> > > oppress a man by supporting him in such a manner. :-)
> >
> > I agree. I think she's much too smart for that. OTOH, she's an
> > attractive woman
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, I'm sure guys lust after her when
> watching the apprentice. :-)

?????? Sorry, the word attractive didn't imply she was a 'hottie'.
>
> > and I suspect that someday she'll meet someone with
> > whom she'd like to share her life.
>
> Yeah, the longer she waits I'm sure the easier that will happen...

I don't know. I do know old folks in old folks homes even find
companionship there, if they're not arrogant dicks. :-)

>
> > But, maybe not...maybe she's happy
> > just the way she is and bullyh for her. Same thing for a man who is
> > content with his lot.
>
> If it makes you and Martha feel better to say so, go right
> ahead. Here's a funny thing: Men such as myself, who are
> by no means sex symbols, generally hook up a lot easier than
> someone such as Martha who could buy all of us 100 times over.

No dear. You're a prick.
>
> > > > That vast majority of heroes are men.
> > > >
> > > > Only because the heroic things women do tend to get little press.
> > >
> > > HAHAHAHA! Sure, no problem! We'll give women camera coverage
> > > when they drop off their children at the firestation and
> > > "save" their lives.
> >
> > You don't get to decide the criteria of what is heroic and what is not.
>
> Ok, brave women "save" children by depositing them at the firestation
> in leau of them dying in her care while cowardly firemen
> rush into burning buildings to save strangers' lives.
>
> > To me, people who sacrifice for their families are all heroes,
>
> So men who take risks by supporting a spouse who could divorce
> him later and take him to the cleaner, that's a hero?
>
> Better change the criteria again!
>
> > the
> > people who work outside the home and inside.
>
> Except you argue that housefraus needn't sacrifice when
> they demand everything back in a divorce later.

Mark, you've lost dear. Alimony is still a given in long term
marriages. It's all over.

>(edit)

> > But then, you were one who assumed that after Clinton left office, that
> > Hillary would end up alone as well. Lo and behold. Bitter boys are so
> > wrong.
>
> Granted, you have a point there. That's a bubble I expected
> to pop before the real estate market. :-)
>
> Come to think of it, I wonder if he will be a huge ball and chain
> to Hillary's potential presidential ambitions. Many moderate voters
> may be turned off by having him as a, er, first lady.

I don't think she'll run unless it's as VP. Well, she might run but
she'll not get the nomination.

>
> > > > > I meant to make this point in another post you had made:
> > > > > You had observed that women took advantage
> > > > > of "opportunities" as they arose. You were talking about
> > > > > created opportunities when it came to making more money or personal
> > > > > power. Men, on the other hand, take the majority
> > > > > of opportunities to make personal moral sacrifices,
> > > > > live up to the role of breadwinner, and to protect their
> > > > > mates and communities.
> >
> > You know, I think you have misunderstood me here, Mark. I'm not
> > putting down loving fathers and husbands who devote themselves to their
> > families.
>
> Sure you are!

No, I'm not. Never have.


You argue that they're oppressors for somehow
> actually having a life outside of slaving away to earn
> a living and cleaning up the house after they get home.
> How dare they! Their laziness cuts into Oprah time! :-)
>
The only men who are oppressors are men who oppress. If a man does his
share of the unpaid work and supports his partner's ambitions as she
supports him, and they both sacrifice time willing given to their kids,
it sounds like the start of something good.

> > In fact, I would guess that women married to such men are
> > forever grateful to those men for their love and devotion.
>
> Indeed. Especially today as such men are rising up to the task
> less quickly in university environments.

???? Sorry, I must have missed your point there. Good men will
always be treasured by good women. That's just the way of things.
>
>I've never> been the one to say that some men don't sacrifice to those they love.
>
> How sweet. And not all women would take advantage of a law
> to abandon their child, er "safe harbor" in leau of letting
> it die in her care.

Well, that's un understatement; after all you could inscribe all their
names on the head of a pin. :-)
(edit)

> You argue that women should get "sacrifice" and hero credit
> for saving their own kids lives after they've let them
> swallow metal objects or abandon them in leau of killing them
> WHILE at the same time arguing men should be shafted for
> taking a break for 10 minutes out of his week to fix up a boat
> in the backyard.

You're nuts, Mark. I'm suggesting that not all men are sexist pigs
like you; that's enough. There are good men out there, but you're not
one of them.
Just accept it...you had to buy a wife. You'll get over it eventually.

Good women find good men to love

I can't speak for Martha, and I won't speak for something personal
about me. :-)

>
> Like you and Martha.
>
> > Opposites don't really work there. :-) So the marriages that
> > do have a chance are between two good people, not heroes and their
> > chattel.
> > :-)
> (edit)
> > > > That's such bulldroppings, Mark. We see many more women than men
> > > > involved in communities including PTA and school functions.
> > >
> > > Indeed! Mostly in red-state neighborhoods where such women
> > > have a lot of time on their hands after they've done
> > > their "unpaid" work (interesting how the bills get
> > > paid with them volunteering and doing so much unpaid work :-)
> >
> > Well, keeping in mind what I stated above, I don't need to place women
> > in a higher than men position since women are already way ahead of the
> > game in matters of sacrifice and doing less harm.
>
> I have a solution!
>
> How about giving men welfare and alimony and letting them
> stay home from work all day! "Midnight basketball"
> This way, they won't do any harm, I promise you.

No one ever promised you a rose garden, Mark. Keep in mind that most
women today work outside the home.
>
> Oh wait, SOMEONE has to EARN a living!
>
> > You simply don't
> > like giving women any credit for anything. I feel for your alleged
> > wife; she is waging a losing battle.
>
> Quite simply, if I was that way, I wouldn't be supporting
> her if I didn't give her credit for something. Indeed,
> that's why you and Martha are alone: You don't value men
> unless they spew out of your loins personally and you
> have some genetic reason for not abandoning them.
> Even a female cat doesn't eat her live kittens...

Mark, I suspect you don't tell your wife much about how you view women,
but I assure you, she'll figure it out. :-) And my personal life, you
know nothing about, so spewing crap won't help your argument here.
>
> > >

.