On Nov 8, 6:04 pm, ChewsCrapola  whined:
> Andre....
>
> do you like... every say anything positive to anyone that posts here
> with a differing opinion than you own?

If they can back up their claims, sure.

But, sicne you have shown that you CAN'T, well, thats YOUR problem.

> I think

No proof EVER offered ? Fact free cowshit loon claim always fails.

> your insult quota is atleast 2 per sentence.

Free Clue, moron: You make NO rules.

> never said I was a troll... but what if I was?  What if I was
> everything that you seem to hate, jewish, black, a woman and a
> troll?

<Laughs> My wife's Jewish, lunatic, try again.

http://www.fathers.bc.ca/feminist_myths.htm

Trick: I'm a male and I agree with the Feminists that [particular
Feminist lie]

Not impressed. You're far from the first man to sell out their own.
You may believe that as what you call a "male" you're in the perfect
position to backstab men's rights, but we've heard it all before.

> erm... surpised the vein on your head has not exploded yet.. you got
> issues dude.

<Massive Ad Hominem Alone Loon MS-Direction Projection>

" Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here. "
As Good As It Gets.

As for the actual *topic*, one that you offer NOTHING on...

http://www.slate.com/id/2137537/

the highbrow: Examining culture and the arts.
Desperate Feminist WivesWhy wanting equality makes women unhappy.
By Meghan O'Rourke
Posted Monday, March 6, 2006, at 7:35 PM ET

In The Feminine Mystique, the late Betty Friedan attributed the
malaise of married women largely to traditionalist marriages in
which wives ran the home and men did the bread-winning. Her
book helped spark the sexual revolution of the 1970s and fueled
the notion that egalitarian partnerships-where both partners
have domestic responsibilities and pursue jobs-would make
wives happier. Last week, two sociologists at the University of
Virginia published an exhaustive study of marital happiness
among women that challenges this assumption. Stay-at-home
wives, according to the authors, are more content than their
working counterparts. And happiness, they found, has less to
do with division of labor than with the level of commitment and
"emotional work" men contribute (or are perceived to contribute).
But the most interesting data may be that the women who
strongly identify as progressive-the 15 percent who agree most
with feminist ideals-have a harder time being happy than their
peers, according to an analysis that has been provided
exclusively to Slate. Feminist ideals, not domestic duties, seem
to be what make wives morose. Progressive married women-
who should be enjoying some or all of the fruits that Freidan
lobbied for-are less happy, it would appear, than women who
live as if Friedan never existed.

Of course, conclusions like these are never cut-and-dried. This
study is based on surveys conducted between 1992 and 1994,
and measuring marital happiness is a little like trying to quantify
sex appeal. But the data are nonetheless worth pausing over,
especially if, like me, you've long subscribed to the view that
so-called companionate couples have the best chance at
sustaining a happy partnership. Among all the married women
surveyed, 52 percent of homemakers considered themselves
very happy. Yet only 45 percent of the most progressive-minded
homemakers considered themselves happy. This might not
seem surprising-presumably, many progressive women prefer to
work than stay at home. But the difference in happiness persists
even among working wives. Forty-one percent of all the working
wives surveyed said they were happy, compared with 38 percent
of the progressive working wives. The same was the case when
it came to earnings. Forty-two percent of wives who earned
one-third or more of the couple's income reported being happy,
compared with 34 percent of progressive women in the same
position. Perhaps the progressive women had hoped to earn
more. But they were less happy than their peers about being a
primary breadwinner-though you might expect the opposite.
Across the board, progressive women are less likely to feel
content, whether they are working or at home, and no matter
how much they are making.

What's really going on here? The conservative explanation, of
course, is that the findings suggest that women don't know
what they really want (as John Tierney implied in the New York
Times, and Charlotte Allen suggested in the Los Angeles Times).
Feminism, they argue, has only undermined the sturdy institution
of marriage for everyone. The feminist and liberal argument is that
reality hasn't yet caught up to women's expectations. Women
have entered the workforce, but men still haven't picked up the
domestic slack-working wives continue to do 70 percent or more
of the housework, according to one study. If you work hard and
come home and find you have to do much more than your husband
does, it's little wonder that you would be angry and frustrated.

Neither explanation seems quite right. (The authors found that
equal division of labor seems not to correlate strongly with
happiness, either.) What is left out of both lines of argument are
the strange ways that rising expectations play into happiness.
The sexual revolution tried to free women and men from
set-in-stone roles. But the irony turns out to be that having a
degree of certainty about what you want (and being in a peer
group that feels the same way) is helpful in making people
happy. Having more choices about what you want makes you
less likely to be happy with whatever choice you end up settling
on. Choosing among six brands of jam is easy. But consumers
presented with 24 types often leave the supermarket without
making a purchase. In much the same way, the more you
scrutinize a relationship, the more likely you are to find fault with
it. The study's authors, W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven Nock,
speculate that fault-finding on the part of wives makes it hard
for men to do the emotional work that stabilizes marriages.
Meanwhile, traditionalist women-a significant portion of whom
are Christian-expect less emotional work from their husbands,
Wilcox and Nock speculate, which makes it easier for them to
shake off frustrations, and less likely to nag. Whether or not
any of this is the case, we do know that traditional marriages
have the advantage of offering clearly defined roles. And
traditionalist wives have a peer group fundamentally in agreement
about what it wants and expects from husbands, creating a
built-in support system.

Consider the evidence that evangelical women-who in general
endorse traditional gender roles-are better at adjusting
psychologically to situations they don't find ideal than feminists
are. Studies of evangelical wives who have to work for financial
reasons show that, as rigid as gender roles are in their community,
women are fairly adept at being what sociologist Sally Gallagher
calls "pragmatically egalitarian." That is, they continue to be
happy with the division of labor, and to see their husbands as
providers, even though they'd prefer to be at home. It's a kind of
utilitarian double-think, Gallagher and others argue-and it helps
explain why traditionalist women who work might consider
themselves happier than feminists who are still struggling to feel
secure in their decisions.

It may be, too, that traditional marriage today is happier than it
was, thanks to feminism. Traditionalists have been able to
maintain the pre-Freidan goals, but all the societal movement in
the other direction has had a freeing effect on their marriages, too.
(That is, Dad still works and Mom stays at home, but thanks to
the general liberalizing of society, Dad can feel OK about helping
more at home and Mom can feel OK about having a chance to
work more, too.) In other words, their goal has stayed the same
(that is, maintaining traditional marriage roles), but they can
pursue it under much less draconian circumstances. No wonder
they're happier. They're free-riders on the women's movement
(though they'd deny it), whereas feminists have descended into a
tangle of second guesses and contradictions.

Dismantling a tradition and carving out a new one can be far more
confusing than adjusting to glitches in the status quo. Progressive
women find themselves navigating marriage as a
choose-your-own-adventure story, which raises the chances of
feeling that they perhaps made the wrong turn along the way. A
progressive-minded woman doesn't just have higher expectations;
she's more likely to pay attention to every setback, and see her
husband's failure to listen at dinner as evidence of larger inequity.
Meanwhile, the paradox of rising expectations can make real
differences seem bigger even as they grow smaller.

Would reverting to traditional gender roles make women happier?
Hardly. This study doesn't mean that the feminist genie
should-or can-be put back in the kitchen. (For one thing, the
study found that working at home made progressive women less
happy than their traditionalist counterparts.) But it may be a
bracing reminder that worrying endlessly over choices isn't the
path to greater freedom, equality, or happiness for women.
Wilcox and Nock's study leaves husbands out of the picture.
What we might wait for is a study that examines husbands'
happiness-and tells us something about how they view male
cultural scripts that remain comparatively stagnant. Maybe for
them, too, clear (even rigid) expectations would correlate with
marital happiness. Or maybe if it were an easier choice for
them to spend more time with their children, or to turn down a
prestigious office job because they want more freedom,
everyone would be happier. In any case, the progressive lesson
of the moment (or is it a traditionalist lesson?) is that it's time
to focus less on "her" marriage-and to remember that
sometimes the personal is just personal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, Feminism makes men *and* women unhappy. But, men
are NOT responsible for what women created...

Andre