Women race the clock

Washington Times ^ | January 10, 2002 | Julia Duin

[nopardons]

It's all in the way a child ( boy OR girl ) is raised. There are good men and good women out there. There are also horrid, rotten examples in both sexes.

Marriage is 100 - 100 proposition and has to be worked at; 50-50 doesn't cut it. If each partner gives his/her all to the other, then one doesn't have to worry about his/her self. :-)

It's NOT so much about understanding a vague idea about what men / women want; it's about knowing what YOU want and setting goals. If the other person doesn't share the vast majority of ones goals / interests, then it just isn't going to work.

[nopardons]

The second part of my post, which you are now replying to, wasn't meant for you and I said so. A more careful reading of my post, will show you that you got all huffy over nothing. LOL

Congrats on your almost 25 year old marriage. :-)

[nopardons]

You'll have to get an "A" in the " finishing " ( that's manners & ettiquette ) part, before you can go on to " wooing ". :-)

[snowstorm12]

ha ha c'mon c'mon c'mon guy and gals. Women need to calm down because there is no so called "crisis" for women. Articles like these are probably manufactured by people who want to scare females into reversing feminism. Women will not have a hard time landing a man anytime soon. If a woman wants marriage there are plenty of men available around the globe. If one man refuses to marry a woman there are 284739 other men who are very eager to have a family etc.

I have never known any woman who had a hard time finding a man for marriage. I've never heard of it or seen it. Women are a valuable commodity, even so called undesireables can manage to find at least one man. Besides there are women who don't believe in marriage and their men still stick around after 15 years or longer.

I knew a widowed female with 8 kids and you'd think a situation like that would turn off most men. Well she had no problem finding a handsome, intelligent and wealthy husband. She managed to get a proposal in just 5 months.

I did know one woman who has so far been unable to get a husband, but this woman is 7 ft tall and doesn't try at all. I'm pretty sure I could find her a man but I don't have the time, plus she is just too unmotivated.

[Anticommie]

Men are reluctant to marry, or remarry, because they know that they will likely lose at least half, and possibly all, the assets they have accumulated over many years if divorce occurs. They will also lose custody of their children, and will seldom be permitted to see them. Of course, they will still have to pay child support in financially crippling amounts for many years, and are liable to be imprisoned if they fail to pay. Meantime, the ex-wife is free to marry, or shack up with, her next stud who will then become the children's new "daddy." Physical,emotional, and/or sexual abuse frequently follows. In some states, the ex-husband will be socked with alimony in addition to the above. Even if divorce does not occur, the married man is subjected to constant monitoring and control of where he goes, what he does, and who he does it with, and in general, how he lives his life. For your next book, Ms. Whitehead, try talking to more men and you may solve the riddle of why there are so many single women.

Right on the money folks.

[nopardons]

You are so full of hot air, that it's frightening. There are plenty of women ( not the bottom of the barrel either ) who have a difficult time in finding suitable dates; let alone a husband.

What are you on ? You keep making the most outrageous, silly statements. LOL

[Capriole]

OK, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Without getting into the crossfire between y'all:

Here is Mr. Wharf Rat, a man who doesn't need to marry because many women are willing to have sex with him sans marriage. He states clearly and honestly that he is NOT interested in a relationship, much less in marriage, but they don't believe him; they even think they can trick him into love, manipulate him into marriage. Pretty vain and self-delusional on their parts, but a frequent mistake. Women can fall in love because of great sex, but men rarely do. Some women don't understand this, so they think that if they just give him a great time he'll pop the question sooner or later. They should believe Mr. Wharf Rat because he is really being truthful with them.

A hundred and fifty years ago women didn't take this approach. Lacking access to "safe" abortions or to reliable birth control, to AFDC payments and social services, they wouldn't commonly part their legs without at least an engagement ring, and probably without a wedding ring. Many of them were quite religious and believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong, but whether they believed this or not, society as a whole certainly told them in no uncertain terms that bringing bastards into the world was very wrong. So Mr. Wharf Rat would not have been able to find clean, pleasant women to have sex with (or even to pass time with, as wasting a woman's time without at least the intention of offering her marriage was socially unacceptable, too). He would either have had to pay hookers or suffer the tortures of horniness. He would have a somewhat uncomfortable life in other ways, too, as single men back then didn't have a great lifestyle, and marriage would improve his standard of living substantially.

In all likelihood, Wharf Rat would eventually have met some sweet, strong, intelligent young woman who would refuse to put out for him, and he would fall in love with her calm, loving spirit. At last he would break down and beg her to make him the happiest man in the world by marrying him. And they might or might not live happily ever after, but they'd have kids and societal pressures would keep him from leaving her or the kids, and society would be the stronger for it.

Many years ago George Gilder wrote an excellent book called Sexual Suicide. His point was that marriage has a very beneficial civilizing effect on men but that stupid, weak women who put out for the price of a good dinner have wrecked things for all of us. I agree with him. I'm filled with horror and despair at all the bitterness and hostility you men feel toward us--a generalized hostility toward all women whether virtuous and loving or cold and vindictive. It is feminism that has brought us to this pass and has wrecked the happiness of endless millions.

[Doctor Raoul]

Maybe we could clone Ann Coulter :)

Call me old fashioned, but I'd stick with traditional methods given the chance.....

[nopardons]

It isn't all feminism's doing; it was the socalled " SEXUAL REVOLUTION " and of the '60s. Before anyone chimes in and says that it was the pill, that was part of it, but not a major factor. Don't forget that diaphrams were available in the preceding decades and most girls/women didn't sleep around then. It was a combination of things ... mostly cultural change, though, and it has gotten worse.

[WFTR]

The marriage penalty tax is on two ( husband & wife ) earner incomes. This has NOTHING to do with married couples with one breadwinner; ergo, your specious, error riddled pronoucement about that, is not only erronious, but spurious.

If we reduce the amount of money that we take from those with two incomes, how do we make up the difference? I'd love to see the difference made up by reducing government spending, but I see little chance of that happening. Will removing this tax increase productivity and therefore revenue? There is no evidence that it will. Decreases in tax rates will increase tax revenue when the tax rate is at very high levels. It worked that way in the 80's because the rates had been so high in the 70's, but the Laffer curve only points to the idea of an optimum rate for highest tax revenue. If we reduce the amount that we take from those with two incomes, we must take more from someone else. The quickest way to get more is to raise eveyone's rates. That increase in rates will hurt single income families.

Extremely import thing : DON'T EVER TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT !

Here's something extremely important for you to think about. Calling something spurrious and error riddled doesn't make it so, and putting labels on opposing arguments doesn't prove your argument right. Every billion in taxes saved by double-income families must be paid by someone. Eliminating the "marriage penalty" does nothing for the traditional family.

Here's something else that you should think about. Talking about topics on which one is not well versed is a great way to learn. However, learning requires that one listen and pay careful attention to what the other person is saying. You seem to have forgotten that lesson somewhere along the way.

At some level, I think you mean well. I even agree with many of your points. Even much of your advice seems good. Maybe I just think it's good because much of it consists of things I've tried or things that I was already planning. Maybe I should doubt it for the very reason that it seems so similar to what I was thinking. However, I don't tolerate haughty people who don't listen. Sadly, many conservatives have fallen into believing that their conservatism can be gauged by how arrogant they can be. They probably mean well, but I think it's a bad sign for conservatism.

WFTR
Bill

[nopardons]

Forget Laffer. Forget the whole zero sum game that you're applying to taxes. Ever hear of the defficit ? Have you read / heard what President Bush's tax cut plan is ?

Why is it right to tax a married couple, with two incomes , at a higher rate than single earners ? Do you mean to sit there and tell me that two people shaking up,with each working, are better than a married couple with two incomes ? Believe it or not, some people use the marriage tax as an excuse for not getting married.

Some two income married couples have children, dear. Some families have to have two people working, whether they would prefer to have the wife stay home or not.

You're getting huffy again. I'm not " arrogant "; I just don't suffer fools lightly and call a spade a spade. What you wrote about the marriage tax was completely erronious . It was riddled with erronious and emotional blunders. It was also specious and spurious. Facts are facts and you totaly misrepresented them and still are.

Fine, don't accept kindly given advice from someone who was willing to take the time and effort to attempt to help you. See if I care. I'm happily married ( for almost 36 years...I must have done something right ), my daughter is happily married ( her sterling upbringing and motherly advice from me , worked well. ), and I don't know you from Adam. Just ignore what I wrote you. Frankly, you weren't worth the effort, dear. ;^)

[Capriole]

It isn't all feminism's doing; it was the socalled " SEXUAL REVOLUTION " and of the '60s.

Well, yes, of course. I have just always considered feminism to be part and parcel of the sexual revolution. It was not just Hugh Hefner and his ilk who encouraged women to lie down for anyone who asked casually. It was also the feminists--even among the very first feminists many years ago, who were believers in "free love."

[snowstorm12]

Wrong my statements aren't outrageous. They're the truth and all women should have high self esteem like me. Any woman who conducts themself like me will have their problems magically disapper. Any woman who is motivated enough and doesn't mope around the house all day can find plenty of exciting, worthy and desirable men. They're all over the place. Where do all these women live that have a hard time Antartica?

Articles just like these are usually written by men and lump most women into the all women are going to die lonely, depressed, and kill themselves without a husband camp. A sky is falling article about women.

[nopardons]

Well, the " FREE LOVE " movements of yore, go back several centuries. The " elites ", who held salons, the Bohemians, artits, and female writers were in the vangaurd of the FLM in the 18th century. Woodhauland Hetty Green were part & parcel of the FLM, in America, in the mid/late 19th century. It is NOT a " new idea and the Suffridgists, Suffridgettes, and the early feminists did NOT espouse it. Susan B. Anthony and her pack, were pro marriage and anti-open your legs and just do it with anyone.

Even in the mid '60s, only a few people were doing that sort of thing. Shacking up was still rare. It all has just snowballed since the Hippies opened the door.

[nopardons]

No dear, you are the one who is wrong. If you don't mind my asking, how old are you ?

Big cities and even in some not so big cities prove to be difficult places for singles of both sexes. Some FREEPERs have complained that small towns are difficult.

Many women have high self esteem, certainly write/speak better grammatical English than you do ( it's like I , not, as you wrote, " like me ", BTW ), and still have problems finding Mr. Right.

But then, you think that JLo is an exemplar of sterling womanhood and how one should conduct oneself. ROTFLMSO !

[mafree]

These women who never got married are looking at a bleak future. I hear it all the time. They have no husbands but they also avoid successfully married women.

Not me- I've never been married, have no strong desire to marry, and have no kids. My future is as good as I make it and I know that I'm responsible for that, not "Prince Charming."

I want to see all my female friends who desire to be married in good marriages, and it pains me when they divorce, get stuck with jerks, or never find the right guy. My best girlfriend is in a happy second marriage and I couldn't be more pleased that this one has worked for her. A high school friend has had a good marriage of 21 years, and I'm thrilled that it's gone well for her. Some other friends have divorced and I'm always sad when that happens.

No, I don't avoid my friends who have good marriages- if anything, they're usually more fun to be around than those who mope and cry about being lonely or mistreated.

[Jeff Chandler]

No need to buy the cow, when she will put out for free!

Yeah, why should the guy your ex is shacking up with buy milk when he has a cow at home!

[sonserae]

A fully expressed woman is someone who is confident, passionate and not afraid to express her passions and interests. She knows how to LIVE and enjoy the process. That positive energy sometimes results in financial and career success and that is when somehow the insecure man tries to crush her spirit so he can feel better about himself. The butterfly gets crushed.

[Enterprise]

"The second part of my post, which you are now replying to, wasn't meant for you and I said so.

I searched your post to me and the only thing which remotely could be construed as not being meant for me is this:

"I've read your juvenile diatribes about the court system, divorce, etc. and since some of those posts are written by never married men

The problems I have with your assertion that something in the post wasn't meant for me are first: There was only one addressee - ME! Second: "some of those posts are written by never married men" carries the logical supposition that SOME were also written by men who WERE married, and some who ARE married. By sheer deduction, the post could easily have been meant for me because you could have read something I posted at some time and decided at this time to respond to me.

"A more careful reading of my post, will show you that you got all huffy over nothing.

I agree that your post was much about nothing. And there was nothing in my reply that was "huffy."

[Enterprise]

I know you have tried adult education, but try it again with classes like medical terminology or anatomy and physiology. These are loaded with nursing types.