John Knight wrote:
>> "Jen Larson" <straycat at udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D37FDBA.AB894599 at udel.edu...
> > That is just a real shame. Marriage no longer has incentive as it did
> > for women because being economically controlled is b-a-d, now the judges
> > are making it economically b-a-d for men good I'm not into "marriage" as
> > the be-all end all of life, life is for living in full force not being
> > restricted, too bad you don't understand what freedom for all is, you
> > are a tyranical bastard from hell who is like a pestulant sickness on a
> > slow breeze you are seen for miles and precautions have been taken to
> > neutralize your infiltration to health.
> The biggest losers in this breakdown of the family have been women, not just
> because of the two-thirds plunge in American "family" incomes (dropping them
> from a solid first place to a shaky 17th place in per worker income in just
> the last 3 decades), but because the most financially destitute households
> are single women with children, followed immediately by single women with no
> children.
Good, this should give women incentive to improve themselves and quit
thinking that they are entitled to a man's money because she will only
fuck him and no other men.
> In spite of your glowing praise of feminism, American women have gained
> nothing, and lost almost everything they ever had.
Sexist perks are artificial and the price paid is too high. Women are
adults and as adults must secure resource for their own survival. To
artificially expect a man to do so is anti-evolution, and produces
child-adults for men to govern which is also sexist against men. I don't
mind adults being responsible for themselves, if they can't then they
can be dealt with as social drains on society.
And the problem is still
> accelerating. At least now we know why this is complete jibberish to
> feminazis--ice plant probably understands it better than feminazis could
> ever hope to.
I understand sexism is false and produces lopsided outcomes
artificially, I prefer reality.
> This system that you "think" was so bad for American women is precisely the
> one that gave them the once-highest standard of living the world had ever
> known. Maybe you didn't even know that, it's been so long since it's been
> true.
A standard of living as a childadult is the worst standard of living no
matter what trappings come with it.
There are now many women in countries which were third world just 3-4
> decades ago who now have higher standards of living than American women--and
> American women haven't hit bottom yet.
Working to support yourself is it's own reward, one that cannot be
bought with baubles and coin. Not me pal. I don't WANT the easy
childadult ride through life, I'm smell this Earth in my nose and I know
I'm supposed to get dirty and work with it to justify my existence.
> Congratulations for failing to figure this out. The Japanese love it.
> Through patriarchy, Japanese women rose to family incomes twice ours from a
> fifth of ours just 4 decades ago. This 10x swing was mostly because of our
> drop in fortunes rather than their dramatic increase.
Your priority is at the opposite end of the spectrum from mine.
