Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women

Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
The founder and president of Eagle Forum says Steve Forbes should not have apologized for an editorial that appeared in his magazine late last month. Forbes editor Michael Noer wrote the widely criticized piece entitled “Don’t Marry Career Women,” in which he describes the difficulties of being married to a profession-oriented female.

Feminists blasted the Forbes article for its supposed anti-woman stance. In the editorial, Noer cited a number of “recent studies” that he says have found career women to be “more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat and less likely to have children.” And if these career-focused women do have children, he adds, statistically “they are more likely to be unhappy about it.”

According to Noer, if “a host of studies” are to be believed, marrying a career woman is asking for trouble. This statement and others in the article drew strong criticism from feminists and others, many decrying the article as sexist. Steve Forbes apologized for the piece, stating that it was meant to be “part academic and part humorous,” but instead it “profoundly offended hardworking career women everywhere.”

However, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly feels Forbes has no reason to apologize since the facts and statistics Noer cited were sound. In fact, she suggests, an article like this should have been written 20 years ago, and this one still hits the right note today because, contrary to the feminist myth, a woman really cannot “have it all” — at least, not all at the same time.

To Schlafly, this is a simple question of practicality. “You can’t have it all at the same time. There are not that many hours in the day,” she asserts. “Now, with our lengthened lifespan, a woman can have it all; I think I’ve had it all,” she says, “but you don’t have it at the same time. A baby is extremely demanding — even more demanding than a husband.”

But the issue Noer’s article raises is not really about women who have careers, the pro-family spokeswoman points out. What the author is really highlighting in the Forbes article, she contends, is the problem of wives who set the wrong priorities.

“A lot of the newspapers … have published articles about how some of the most highly educated women — women who graduated from the elite colleges and then got graduate degrees like MBAs or JDs — have put their career ahead of husband and family,” Schlafly notes. “In many of these cases, in the woman’s scale of values, the husband is ranking third,” she says.

The real issue is not women having careers, Schlafly says, but women making their careers their highest priority, above family. When that type of situation takes place, she observes, it is not likely that a husband will stick around. So, feminist critiques notwithstanding, Eagle Forum’s president adds, there’s nothing offensive about setting good priorities.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/72006c.asp

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

09-19-2006 04:33 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

Right … this from a woman who has a law degree, has run for Congress several times and heads up her own organization. She’s not exactly sitting at home baking cookies …

09-19-2006 04:38 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

The woman is over 80 years old.. had 6 children.. many more grandchildren.  she’s probably baked more cookies than you could ever aspire to.

09-19-2006 04:50 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

right … but the point being that she’s advocating for women to stay home and not have careers when she has had quite a successful one herself.

09-19-2006 04:57 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

yea… campaigning against feminist causes.  someone had to do it

09-19-2006 04:59 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

were all the men, who she deemed most suitable for the work environment, otherwise occupied?

09-19-2006 05:05 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

trying to get out of the womb unaborted to take you on now

09-19-2006 05:06 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

mature …

so would phyllis be deemed an unattractive partner because of her career? is she a career woman?

09-19-2006 05:10 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

she married a lawyer.. took up a cause… successfully prevented some of the advancements of feminism… had several kids and more grand kids.

makes me admirer of her.  i don’t admire whiney feminists who parade around with a victim mentality.

09-19-2006 05:13 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

So now you think her career is not a problem at all, neither are the other women’s careers, right?

Then why you guys shoot so much on career women if the career itself has nothing wrong?

If a woman is good, then she is good with or without career. If a woman is bad, then she is bad with or without career anyways.

I don’t know what you guys are angry and mad about.

09-19-2006 05:40 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

noer’s article was not to marry career women

i agree with him

i have never married schlafly nor do i intend to lol

09-19-2006 05:51 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

Didn’t we get into this mess by cowering and remaining silent while the fems tried to figure it all out by themselves? I’m not exactly interested in what they have to say now except as it is symptomatic of what they have caused.

09-19-2006 06:12 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

There is nothing for us to figure out. You guys ara frustrated and I just pointed out. So don’t get angry, again.

09-19-2006 06:18 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

you haven’t pointed much of anything out other that the ability to get on here and rant like everyone else

09-19-2006 06:20 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

ACatInSD wrote:
There is nothing for us to figure out. You guys ara frustrated and I just pointed out. So don’t get angry, again.

Yes men are frustrated. But so are women. Thats why they complained so loudly about the Micheal Noer article becuase they still want to trick men into proposing and reap the benefits of the sham called western marriage.

Now your hearing from men why we are pissed off… and guess what? You dont want to hear it.

What a surprise (not).

Message Edited by Doc_Savage on 09-19-2006 06:33 PM

09-19-2006 06:32 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

Just one basic commensense here:

In Noer’s article he doesn’t mention “feminism/feminist” at all, it is YOU guys put euqation mark between “feminist” and “career women” and mixed them together and vented all your hatred and anger and resentment from your past. And you insist on that they are the same. I don’t see the hell connections between what you are pouring out and what Noer’s article is talking about.

You can choose not marry to any career women, but you have no right to insult them (if any of them have been smart enough to dump you, that would be another story), although this is a free country.

You really behave like the “McCharthist” in 1950s which nobody in this contry feel proud of.

09-19-2006 06:36 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

ACatInSD wrote:

You really behave like the “McCharthist” in 1950s which nobody in this contry feel proud of.

No, we’re behaving like a minority (which is hilarious because we are not) standing up for our rights.

We are supposed to be equal… right?

But it seems we are not because women seem to think they need special considerations plus they want to hang on to all the old privileges as well.
It’s really the feminist’s that are behaving like McCarthyites.

09-19-2006 06:47 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
It is almost amusing the reaction of Career Gals. CBS News ran a piece last year of three Uber Women. Who were on the Fast Track. One was a CBS News Producer. Who gave up careers to be “Stay At Home Moms”. One was the Editor of the Stanford Law Review, Clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. But did not want their Children calling a Nanny Mommy. I applaud their sense of priorities. Meredith Viera was lambasted for staying at home to have her Second child.

There is a time for a Career for Women. After having children, and seeing them off to school. There are plenty of years left to pursue a satisfying career. After you have had healthy children. Younger Women have healthier Children who live longer. Career Women believe and behave as if its all about them. Narcacism is what makes them a poor choice it is about your priorities. Husband ranks after Career, Babies, Friends, Pets, fourth place if he is lucky. Sex I can maybe fit you in three weeks from now.

Phyliss had her priorities straight. And is a brillant Woman. She is also dispised by Feminists. Here is another Fox News Producer who gave up her Career at Fox to be a CHO (Chief Household Officer).
xxwww.darlashine.com

09-19-2006 06:49 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

None if women at least in this forum would agree with you, so according to your theory, all of us are feminist and McCharthiests!

09-19-2006 06:49 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Right… this from a woman who has a law degree, has run for Congress several times and heads up her own organization. She’s not exactly sitting at home baking cookies…

Schlafly always put her husband and kids and family first, and put her money where her mouth is promoting that value.

She graduated from college at 19, got her MA at 20, got married, and had 6 children.

She ran for congress twice, the first time between pregnancies, the second after her children were grown.

She devoted herself to family from 1949-1970, and then when the kids were out of the house she started her career in earnest.

09-19-2006 06:50 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

Again, she agrees with Noer’s opinion, which has nothing to do with yours here.

09-19-2006 06:57 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Again, she agrees with Noer’s opinion, which has nothing to do with yours here.

If you are replying to my post, I posted facts.

Try your moral relativism (wherein anything someone posts is opinion, and all opinions are equal, etc.) somewhere else; it won’t fly with me.

09-19-2006 07:34 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
AcatinSD said,

“In Noer’s article he doesn’t mention “feminism/feminist” at all, it is YOU guys put euqation mark between “feminist” and “career women” and mixed them together and vented all your hatred and anger and resentment from your past. And you insist on that they are the same. I don’t see the hell connections between what you are pouring out and what Noer’s article is talking about.”

Hey! It’s my favorite dragonlady! Otsukaresama desu!!

There are over 8,000 threads explaining why Feminism is directly responsible for the sad state of affairs in this country.

Several of my posts point out these connections specifically.

Feminism is the evil ideology that made made marriage to Feminist career women quite undesireable in the first place.

Message Edited by Mamonaku on 09-19-2006 09:03 PM

09-19-2006 09:02 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

You have drifted away from the topic boy, Noer was talking about career women, but you focus on feminists that I’ve never seen.

Is this your equation: career women=feminists?

If yes, you are Nazi for sure, much worse than McCarthiest.

09-19-2006 11:37 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Is this your equation: career women=feminists?  …………………

yea like.. uh huh huh huh..  .. like. .uh huh huh huh .. like huh huh huh…

let me see..  uh huh huh huh..

1 + 1 = 2 ..

yea. .uh huh huh huh .. uh huh huh huh.. uh uhuh huh

yea..

something like that.. uh huh huhhh uuhhhu

09-20-2006 12:03 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

You should call 911 to save your life now, too old to calculate.

09-20-2006 01:17 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
“You have drifted away from the topic boy, Noer was talking about career women, but you focus on feminists that I’ve never seen.

Is this your equation: career women=feminists?

If yes, you are Nazi for sure, much worse than McCarthiest.”

Dragonlady, do you even know what McCarthiest even means?

If anything, our “Domestic Violence” laws show beyond doubt that our FemiNasty friends are McCarthiest.

Eigo wakaru no ka?
Nihongo no hou ga ii darou ka??

I’m here for you Dragonlady!

09-20-2006 07:10 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Okay listen ACatInSD and you other va*inas alledged woman did have a degree at the time of her marriage, NOT a career. She stayed home and not beeing a career woman taking care of the kids not putting hubby in the situation where he has to do ALL of the housework after a day in court. If a woman aspiers a career after she is done beeing a mom thats fine she will have plenty of time for it. Its about marrying a career woman, nobody said women should not have a career at all. And it aint only career women, it is women in general who have been brainwashed in colleges and in front of the tv, thinking beeing sassy and sarcastic is intelligent, acting however the hell they feel like without taking in acctoun the impact her acting or decision making may have on her partner is indipendet, not to mention that in her twisted mind her asocial behavious and thinking only of herself must be perfectly acceptabel for her hubby, or esle she unpacks the divorce, restraining order maze.

09-20-2006 10:47 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
I think EVERYONE kind of missed this paragraph, which I think is a decent compromise:

“The real issue is not women having careers, Schlafly says, but women making their careers their highest priority, above family. When that type of situation takes place, she observes, it is not likely that a husband will stick around. So, feminist critiques notwithstanding, Eagle Forum’s president adds, there’s nothing offensive about setting good priorities.”

I am in full agreement. I love what I do but it will not come before my family.

09-20-2006 12:05 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
“The real issue is not women having careers, Schlafly says, but women making their careers their highest priority, above family. When that type of situation takes place, she observes, it is not likely that a husband will stick around. So, feminist critiques notwithstanding, Eagle Forum’s president adds, there’s nothing offensive about setting good priorities.”

‘I am in full agreement. I love what I do but it will not come before my family.’

/Agreed

Thats what I’m talkin bout!!

Unfortunately, Feminist Career chicks don’t feel this way at all. As the laws and attitudes in this country stand, there is no point in getting married without being double damned sure that the woman is good.

For men, the number one option is not to marry at all.

09-20-2006 05:44 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
I don’t know that there’s any way of marrying anyone and making double damned sure of anything. IF you want to get married, it takes a lot of trust in the other person – every bit of trust you’ve got to give. It’s rewarding if it works out, and for some people the potential reward is worth the risks. For others, it’s not. To each his own.

09-20-2006 08:12 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay
yep.. it will sure help to do one’s homework before getting married. and even that’s not a surefire guarantee. but then again, not much of anything else is

09-20-2006 08:17 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
If you want to get married it takes a lot of the MAN to trust the WOMAN. A woman does not need to trust she does not even need to love and thats why they are so marryhappy, taking a guy even if the dont really care, because if it does not work out, hey no sweat alimony child support OUT OF MY HOUSE.

09-20-2006 10:48 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
There are women out there who want to get, and stay, married. Perhaps they are hard to find, but they exist. And those women do need to put in just as much love and trust. When two people are in love, they each have equal potential to hurt the other person.

09-20-2006 11:26 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

When two people are in love, they each have equal potential to hurt the other person.

Haha there you go being a dumb slow learner again.

There are about 4,000 threads on here explaining that:

1. Free money for 18 yrs

and

2. Paying more money than they can often afford for 18yrs or they go to jail

Is not “equal”.

I don’t care if you say you think it should be a different way so you can contradict yourself at a later time (like above). The statement above is hammered in as blatantly incorrect. It’s so in your face that you are simply walking proof of the invalidity of women’s suffrage. I mean, I sort of believe in women’s suffrage, but what I’m getting swung away from it by are nonsensical comments from women like the above.

Actual cats learn faster than you do. Change your nick to phatdodo811.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-21-2006 12:57 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

phatkat811 wrote:
There are women out there who want to get, and stay, married. Perhaps they are hard to find, but they exist. And those women do need to put in just as much love and trust. When two people are in love, they each have equal potential to hurt the other person.

Is this stupid biitch for real?

This is typical of idiot women who are in denial about the reality of marriage today. Not only is it likely to end in divorce, it is also likely to end in the man getting taken to the cleaners.. This stupid biitch is talking about risk like it’s a game of poker where all you lose is a few chips here and there.

HEY DUMB BIITCH. Men do NOT want to pay a whore off after a divorce. There is no benefit to a man being married. Women get all the benefits when it comes to marriage because the feminazis have hijacked the institution and created a legal scam to milk a money of his hard earned money. This is worse than the Nigerian email scam because A) it’s legal and B) there are no typos.

A man would have to be a complete idiot to get married in this day and age. You can be committed WITHOUT signing your death warrant and half your income away. Marriage is for morons. Don’t try to con men into the romantic notion of marriage when women are less than romantic when it comes to dividing assets. Don’t take the chance of a biitch taking all your money. IF the odds were 1 or 2% that you’d lose out, maybe. But 66% in california alone for the divorce rate? You’d have to be an idiot woman to think those were reasonable odds to fall back on.

They would love a dumb biitch like this in Vegas. House always wins against a moron and wishful thinking.

09-21-2006 01:03 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

Happy_Bullet wrote:

When two people are in love, they each have equal potential to hurt the other person.

Haha there you go being a dumb slow learner again.

There are about 4,000 threads on here explaining that:

1. Free money for 18 yrs

and

2. Paying more money than they can often afford for 18yrs or they go to jail

Is not “equal”.

I don’t care if you say you think it should be a different way so you can contradict yourself at a later time (like above). The statement above is hammered in as blatantly incorrect. It’s so in your face that you are simply walking proof of the invalidity of women’s suffrage. I mean, I sort of believe in women’s suffrage, but what I’m getting swung away from it by are nonsensical comments from women like the above.

Actual cats learn faster than you do. Change your nick to phatdodo811.

That included every kind of hurt – legal, financial, or mental and emotional. Or is the ONLY kind of pain you men can imagine having your money taken away? I don’t agree with the way divorce works these days, but there are PLENTY of women out there who have been hurt by the person they married too, and left taking care of kids with little or no money because they left a husband who would have eventually killed them, or who have left a man who cheated, or etc. etc. But noooo, MEN don’t hurt women, women are the ONLY ones who hurt people!!

If a man is more concerned with keeping his money than getting his heart broken, or making sure his loved ones are happy, he probably shouldn’t be getting married. Maybe that should be Noer’s next Forbes advice column.

I can see why some men are anti-marriage and that’s fine. Nothing to do with me. I was simply responding to another poster’s comment about love and trust.

Message Edited by phatkat811 on 09-21-2006 01:59 AM

09-21-2006 01:52 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

PhatDodo811 Wrote:

That included every kind of hurt – legal, financial, or mental and emotional.

haha so then the woman getting a big pay day while the husband lives a minimum wage lifestyle for the next 18 years is ACTUALLY equality because it EMOTIONALLY hurts the dumb biitch more?!?

Once again you’ve proven what a sick twisted f*ck you are. Congratulations!!

If a man is more concerned with keeping his money than getting his heart broken, or making sure his loved ones are happy, he probably shouldn’t be getting married. Maybe that should be Noer’s next Forbes advice column.

I think Noer’s next Forbes advice column should be about narcissistic, self-absorbed biitches that try to manipulate guys into marrying them with shame tactics like: “The threat of having your life ruined as a slave is nothing compared to love. OR DO YOU NOT LOVE?!?”

Uh huh. Figured it out a long time ago. Completely useless. Get new material and try again.

And the advice column on not marrying dumb biitches that want their hands on your cash was covered in part already. Great isn’t it?

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-21-2006 02:46 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-21-2006 02:28 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“Or is the ONLY kind of pain you men can imagine having your money taken away?”

Divorce ain’t called “the rape of the male” for nothing. And lest you think that’s just hyperbole, you really should review the basic biological notion of reproductive resources. It is a man’s money/status, his ability to provide for offspring, which is his minimum necessary qualification so far as most potential female mates are concerned. It’s the primary reproductive resource he brings to the table. Men don’t risk their lives mining coal because it’s a fun hobby where they can make a little money. If for women it’s “Our Bodies, Ourselves”, for men it’s “Our Paychecks, Ourselves”.

To take a man’s money over an extended period of time and give nothing in return which furthers his reproductive success is about as biologically equivalent to raping a woman until she is pregnant and then forcing her to have the child, i.e. to make her invest her reproductive resources involuntarily, as one can get.

And if all that isn’t bad enough, women and society generally approve of and support this rape of the male! They say he deserved it. And we thought feminism had outlawed blaming the victim. It’s outrageous. When you think of the number of men involved (millions) and the number of years this has been going on (30+), it starts to take on the proportions of a holocaust. Which explains a lot about the adamancy of the men here who have clued in, as well as the absolute idiocy of women who just don’t get it.

But is money the only thing? No. Because from the male point of view (and many women’s also) the chief product of a long-term union is to produce children. The current policies surrounding divorce amount to making the man subsidize the theft of his children by his ex, where they’re then at an increased risk for all sorts of Bad Things. For some crazy reason the kids belong to her, and his money does also. He’s penalized twice in divorce even if he as at no fault whatsoever: he loses his children and then is made to pay for this “privilege”. It’s both criminal and insane. It would be like men getting custody of the kids and the ex-wife having to continue cooking, cleaning, changing diapers, doing laundry, etc. for them for eighteen years.

It’s a wonder there are any men stupid enough to buy into this racket, but from the ongoing alleged Great American Man Shortage and the statistics on the constantly declining number of marriages I’d say there are fewer and fewer such men every day.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-21-2006 03:13 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
PhatKat said,

“I don’t know that there’s any way of marrying anyone and making double damned sure of anything. IF you want to get married, it takes a lot of trust in the other person – every bit of trust you’ve got to give. It’s rewarding if it works out, and for some people the potential reward is worth the risks. For others, it’s not. To each his own.”

My dear lady, now you are being ridiculous.

Women make double **bleep** sure that their mates are “acceptable” to them. They make these evaluations constantly… from the moment they meet a potential husband.

We men are not silly enough to think otherwise.

I’m rather disappointed Phat… I thought for a moment you were beginning to understand.

But! The revolution will continue… whether you are on board or not.

As far as Men not getting married, that angle is covered in detail at:

http://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com/

09-21-2006 07:13 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

Happy_Bullet wrote:

PhatDodo811 Wrote:

That included every kind of hurt – legal, financial, or mental and emotional.

haha so then the woman getting a big pay day while the husband lives a minimum wage lifestyle for the next 18 years is ACTUALLY equality because it EMOTIONALLY hurts the dumb biitch more?!?

Nope. I didn’t say that. In that situation, it hurts the man much more and it may not hurt the woman at all because she may have been a manipulative bitch from the get-go. However, if the woman is a decent person who loved the man, who abused her and the kids and she got away for fear of her life, she is the one who is hurt more. It seems to be usually one person who gets the brunt of everything in a divorce, and in situations where the man’s got money and didn’t do anything wrong, it’s the man. Divorce isn’t an amicable thing. I don’t blame a soul for not wanting to go through it.

09-21-2006 11:59 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

Mamonaku wrote:
PhatKat said,

“I don’t know that there’s any way of marrying anyone and making double damned sure of anything. IF you want to get married, it takes a lot of trust in the other person – every bit of trust you’ve got to give. It’s rewarding if it works out, and for some people the potential reward is worth the risks. For others, it’s not. To each his own.”

My dear lady, now you are being ridiculous.

Women make double **bleep** sure that their mates are “acceptable” to them. They make these evaluations constantly… from the moment they meet a potential husband.

We men are not silly enough to think otherwise.

Correction: the women who want to swindle men out of money by divorcing them make sure their mates are “acceptable”, because all they have to do is make sure he’s got money, he’ll take care of her, and he’s gullible enough to fall for her.

The honorable women out there are taking just as much of a risk as anybody. Maybe it’s not as considerable of a financial risk for some, but it’s a risk nonetheless. Anyone who approaches marriage expecting not to take a risk and not to have to work at it is hugely mistaken. I learned that from my parents.

09-21-2006 12:02 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
MartianBachelor “The current policies surrounding divorce amount to making the man subsidize the theft of his children by his ex, where they’re then at an increased risk for all sorts of Bad Things.”

This is yet another example of how feminism is most dangerous to children. When they aren’t trying to rip inconvenient children unceremoniously from their mothers’ wombs (and activley encouragting it by trying to detacht any shame from the act) they are out ripping them from their fathers’ protective arms.

I get so sick of hearing these arguments about abuse in marriage being a good excuse to rip the family apart. First of all, we’ve already discussed the divorce rate was much lower before no fault divorce leading me to conlucde abuse was never all that common. Second, how many of these women married men they knew were alcoholics, drug addicts, had uncontrollable tempers? Third, could their behavior toward him ahve pushed him over the edge once? I’m not saying a man ought to hit his wife, but rather that she ought to not bail on the family because of one overreaction to her repeatedly childish anticts. There can only be a miniscule number of truly abusive situations in which she never saw it coming before getting married. Of course the feminists have probably redefined abuse to mean ‘any behavior other than spending 24 hours a day flattering and catering to every whim of the wife.” In that case every marriage is abusive.

They have effectively removed any and all obligations from the woman in a marraige in the name of helping her when in reality they pickle her in immaturity. A selfish, immature mother is a bad mother. So they discourage young girls from focusing on and learning about being a good wife and mother and then encourage women to act like spoiled little girls one they are wives and mothers.

09-21-2006 12:52 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“First of all, we’ve already discussed the divorce rate was much lower before no fault divorce leading me to conlucde abuse was never all that common.”

Exactly. One of the supposed rationales for going to no-fault divorce 30-5 years ago was that people who wanted out of their marriages just because they weren’t living some TV fantasy life were having to go to great lengths to manufacture a justifiable cause for their divorces.

PI’s and divorce lawyers who were around back then can tell endless numbers of stories about schemes cooked up to frame the innocent party and thus build a case for a divorce. These guys (and a few gals) did a large part of their biz helping set up and then document the engineered affairs, or “proof” that hubby was a drunk, or whatever was needed. There was quite a bit of nonsense. If it was found out it pissed off the other party so much that a divorce usually ensued anyway. So either way the person wanting out usually got what they wanted, or they both ended up spending the rest of their lives making each other as miserable as possible.

But the remedy to this sad state of affairs was like saying, “hell, if five year olds are going to go to so much trouble to drive, let’s just reduce the driving age to five.”

“They have effectively removed any and all obligations from the woman in a marraige in the name of helping her when in reality they pickle her in immaturity.”

Which is why so many women have fantasies about getting married, not being married.

I’m assuming everyone here has seen the spoof TV ad The Man Show did for “Wife School”… it’s funny simply because it’s so improbable an idea.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-21-2006 11:55 AM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-21-2006 01:44 PM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

phatkat811 wrote:

Correction: the women who want to swindle men out of money by divorcing them make sure their mates are “acceptable”, because all they have to do is make sure he’s got money, he’ll take care of her, and he’s gullible enough to fall for her.

The honorable women out there are taking just as much of a risk as anybody. Maybe it’s not as considerable of a financial risk for some, but it’s a risk nonetheless. Anyone who approaches marriage expecting not to take a risk and not to have to work at it is hugely mistaken. I learned that from my parents.

Is this woman on crack? These dumb biitches don’t have to risk half their income like men do. Men have nothing to gain from marriage, only a woman gains from marriage. A man can get the same thing being single. Why gamble with his life under the draconian feminazi laws?

09-22-2006 12:06 AM

Re: Schlafly Defends Columnist’s Warning About Marrying Career Women
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

PhatDodo811 Wrote:

Correction:

You didn’t correct anything. You argued the straw man argument that “there was some risk for the woman”. Uh yeah, but the argument was whether there is EQUAL RISK OR NOT AS A GENERAL RULE. Which you admitted to it not being when you said:

Maybe it’s not as considerable of a financial risk for some

Oh Thanks for conceding that taking a guy to the cleaners is “maybe not as considerable a risk for some”. Pathetic manipulative moron.

The basis of your argument seems to be that due to the EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES that the guy beat the wife, all risk in marriages is equal because in some she can get beaten.

PhatKat you bloody cuunt: THAT DOES NOT MEAN WOMEN ACROSS THE BOARD TAKE EQUAL RISK. YOU ARE A MANIPULATIVE LOW-LIFE THAT SHOULD BE STERILISED AND HAVE “WHORE” STAMPED TO YOUR FOREHEAD.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-22-2006 01:03 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-22-2006 12:58 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: