<raugust at ptd.net> wrote:
>Well, what do you think money is to a woman?
Same thing it is to a man. Something with which to pay bills.
>To a woman, money is power.
I think men are more likely than women to think of money as power.
>A
>woman will prostitute herself buck naked and flat on her back 24 hours a
>day, sleeping with the "right" people, until she gets her millions.
That is why the world's richest women are all prostitutes, right?
>Worse yet, sex is power to a woman.
Again something I think that is more commonly associated with men.
>She knows that if she whines the right way to
>get a man to do her bidding, she can deny him sexual intercourse until he
>capitulates.
Which usually means that the man goes elsewhere for his sex. After
all, someone has to pay those prostitute millionaires.
>Not only does she have his money, but also his sperm,
Now THERE is a valuable asset, considering that every man throws
millions away every day, while the woman seldom can use more than one.
>his capitulation to her every whim,
That sounds like his problem.
>and also his CHILD
You mean it isn't HER child too? And remember, you are siding with
the infamous nincompoop, who went to prison rather than support "his
CHILD".
>Why do you think so many women have children in the first place?
Probably most do so because they love children. A few others do so
because their man insists on his sex and one or the other of the
prospective parents then object to birth control or abortion.
>As long as she has a man's child, being a "family
>woman" doesn't mean a hill of beans.
Really?
>That child means she has half our income,
Ask the nincompoop's ex-wife about that.
>food stamps, government medical benefits, and welfare cash and food
>assistance for "her" child,
As a result of which, most such single women are below the poverty
line. But that "doesn't mean a hill of beans", does it?
>and the ability to call "911" to haul us off when we go to VISIT our children.
I know a lot of men who visit their kids, without anyone calling 911.
>Because money is power to a woman, we men are reduced to little more than
>conduits for sperm and tax dollars.
Well, if you go live in a monastery, you certainly won't have much to
worry about then.
>Our women pre-1973 had a 5x higher standard of living
What a load of crap.
>with greatly increased personal savings
Women before 1973 often had NO personal savings.
>and more assurance of a living income after men died,
In 1960, survivor income per beneficiary averaged $750/year, and the
average life insurance policy was $3600. In 1950, it was $400/year
and $2,200. In 2000 terms (based on the consumer price index) the
1960 numbers were $4,350/year and $21,000. The 1950 numbers equate to
$2,900/year and $16,000. Needless to say, someone elderly could not
live comfortably for long today on a $21,000 nest egg and around
$350/mo income (based on the 1960 numbers). Rent and medical bills
will each average far higher than the monthly income.
>making huge salaries of dollars that aren't worth wooden nickels,
I dunno. There are only a couple of currencies whose unit value is
higher than ours, and they have fallen more than we have since 1960.
>and we can't even construct a decent shoelace in our economy.
We probably couldn't in 1960 either; it wasn't exactly the height of
consumer product
>We can't even produce a woman with an IQ over 100 who can spell properly,
I know plenty of women who spell better than you, and appear to have
higher IQs than you.
>short of home-schooling her or sending her to parochial schools.
who had neither of those things.
>How do you think money-hungry, power-thirsty women got where they are?
I don't know any of those.
>They
>whiiiiiiined, they slept with the right people, they whiiiiiiiiiined, they
>denied sex to those whom they thought were losers, they whiiiiiiiiiiined,
>they acted like bimbos on command,
On whose command? The men who had no power, right?
>they whiiiiiiiiiiined, and men
>capitulated to get them to shut up. Then, they whiiiiiiiiined some more.
>Did you ever wonder why Anna Nicole Smith gets her own "reality" TV show
>after posing for Playboy,
Because men hunger for her body, and are willing to pay money to see
more of it?
>and why "Leave it to Beaver" gets left in the re-runs?
Because men don't hunger for his body, and hence don't pay much to see
it?
lojbab