"Jen Larson" <straycat at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3D3AC1CD.A00CDD37 at udel.edu...
>>> 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
> .uck him and no other men.
>
Then you don't mind if men keep their hard earned money, and leave women to
earn theirs on their own, with NO welfare, NO AFDC, NO social security paid
for exclusively with men's dollars, NO medicare (ditto), NO "tax credits"
like EITC which exceeds the total contribution of women to the IRS by $98
billion, NO "child support", and not one single dollar ever earned by a man?
That's what we've been waiting to hear!
John Knight
