Posted on 02/01/2014 6:55:01 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Am I the only reader who talks to her newspaper? Who chokes on her steaming cup of café con leche and wonders out loud about fundamental issues of decency and fairness?
Why, oh, why do we continue reading that Wendy Davis, a state senator who wants to be the first Democratic governor of Texas in 20 years, left her daughters, then 2 and 8, with her then-husband, Jeff Davis, while she pursued a law degree at Harvard University?
Given that he is the father of one of those daughters and the stepfather of the other, it would make more sense to write that he stayed with their children, or that the children stayed home with their father.
And, given that no one disputes that fact or seems damaged by it, what is the big deal? What does it say about our society, about us, that we continue to penalize women, but not men, for pursuing their dreams?
Some say the issue is not what Davis did or didn’t do, as a mother and as a wife, but that she fudged on the details as she runs a campaign that heavily relies on the narrative of her private life: teenage bride, early divorce, single mother of one, brief stay in a trailer, married again, another child, law school, a husband who helped pay for her education, divorce after a long marriage....
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
By the way:
“it’s why God made Eve last. didn’t want someone over His shoulder saying “it’s nice, but what about...” for every single thing”
Here’s Adam’s virile reply:
The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
Don’t be deceived that men are not every bit as culpable in contraception (and abortion, which is bloody contraception), the way Adam is just a culpable, here.
And don’t be deceived that women are aware of getting the finger pointed at them, and the animosity.
In Catholicism, from Ephesians (St. Paul’s Christian philosophical lectures), it is said that womens’ happiness is a reflection of how virtuous her husband is.
Okay, you’re convinced I hate women, disrespect them with frequency, and defend abortionists. Is that about it?
Why would I possibly suggest you might want to lighten up?
I was pointing out that some people would take it as changing the subject from abortionists to women in general, in reading this misogynist exchange. You were refuting it.
Still are. We’re done here, I am sure.
Stanne, overreact much?
Thankfully you’ve pulled out the last insult in your quiver, misogynist.
Does it ever occur to you that there is no word that describes the hatred of men in this fashion?
Think about that. Nobody took the time to develop a word that references misogynist like action against men.
Why do you think that is?
Is it because only men can be haters?
Is it because women thought there needed to be a word like this for actions against them.
Is it because men simply don’t operate on a level where they feel the need to dismiss actions based on the concept negative things said about them would have to be broad enough to cover all men?
Could it be that women are so fragile, that they needed a word men didn’t?
Could it be that women are so shallow, that they can’t deal with rejection, criticism, and the daily strife men do without having to be so petty?
Thanks in advance for the “reasoned” answers I’m sure will come.
Me, too. I do have a "no chicks" rule when it comes to electing public officials - unless the other choice(s) are totally unacceptable.
I will say that I am very under impressed with how women’s votes go for men like Clinton and Obama. It has actually caused me to wonder if a significant enough percentage of women are capable of judging these candidates logically. Should they be participating?
As for electing one to office, it depends on how they handled their previous position. What was their previous position?
What are their views. Do their views telegraph loop-holes in logic?
In short, these are the types of things I consider when it’s a man. Men having voted down Obama and Clinton, I haven’t made a review of whether they should be participating or not. If they can weigh the issues, and come down on the right side, that’s good enough for me.
While that’s funny, no denying it, that isn’t my overall view of women and their attempt to expand on their traditional roles.
I will say this though. Our society has paid a very heavy toll for women leaving the home and joining the work force. Our homes are failing at alarming rates, and our children are being abandoned to raise themselves.
We have seen the results. Now it’s time to reassess. Were the people who predicted this right in the 70s and 80s?
Is our society better off today?
There are many factors to be sure, but I think we’ve made a big mistake in undervaluing the home, and over valuing participation in the work force.
Something is rotten in Denmark, when one wage earner can’t go out and earn a living that will sustain their family. Today it’s hard enough for two to do it, in most instances.
Women will say that it shouldn’t be them who should be staying home. It’s just as good an idea if the man stays home. Strangely, when it comes to divorce, that logic is long forgotten. Oh, my darlings should live with me. I’m their mommy.
My husband, and his friends, rightfully refer to them as, “manhaters”.
Distinguishable from the icky Miss Davis by her willingness to get close to men in order to extract money from them, AKA, “golddiggers”.
Shall I go on? Or are you now remembering that there are plenty of derogatory terms for women, earned and acquired by mere association, no doubt in your vocabulary.
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you, it’s not my view either, but IMHO, the dems and feminists do a bang-up job of painting conservatives with that mantra.
Stanne, you’re still grasping at straws to convince yourself that something was as bad as you think it must have been.
Women-haters is to man-haters as Misogynist is to ____________?
Fill in the blank.
If you can’t, then it is true in a sense that we operate in different ways men and women. How does that feel?
I neither like you or hate you. I don’t know you. How does that fit in with the view you’ve been trying to buttress in your own mind about me?
You took a few comments said in jest, and have convinced yourself you know everything about me as it relates to my thoughts on women. Isn’t that about as stupid as what you are trying to accuse me of?
I think you know that it is.
I agree.
You three took the conversation form Wendy Davis’ apologist to a theme of “all women are unhappy”.
I objected.
You can let it go or you can keep proving my point that you expect complete, unopposed ability to put down all women.
Up to you.
In my case you’d lose that wager.
It was a safe bet.
Do those self respecting ladies know that/hear you talk like this?:
“They have half the money and all the p****. You think that wold [sic] be enough for them.”
Indeed they do. One of them is the esteemed Mrs L who pretty much feels the same way about these man hating feminazis.
I doubt it
Here’s the beginning of the discussion, your comment, which evoked a stream of “all women are -” talk, including the P word, which, I don’t expect to see here on FR, and to which I commented that the thread had been hijacked.
If that’s ballistic in your mind, that speaks for itself. Here’s your comment:
” am so fricken tired of gender politics.
At the end of the day, women pretty much go what they wanted.
Now they’re still unhappy. Well, on those matters, that pretty much makes it unanimous.”
You don’t know Mrs L. God I love that woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
