Posted on 12/19/2004 8:17:15 PM PST by tbird5
With journalists as well as social scientists continually on the lookout for new trends, the public is regularly treated to the discovery of social "revolutions." One of the latest concerns women and work. In October 2003, Lisa Belkin detected an "opt-out revolution" in her New York Times Magazine article about accomplished women leaving high-powered jobs to stay home with their kids. Six months later, reports on the revolution were still going strong. For example, the March 22, 2004 cover of Time showed a young child clinging to his mother's leg alongside the headline, "The Case for Staying Home: Why More Young Moms Are Opting Out of the Rat Race." But the evidence on this score is thin. Both the New York Times and Time stories are based mainly on evocative anecdotes. Princeton college graduates with law degrees from Harvard staying home to change diapers may be absorbing as a human-interest story. But as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.
The limited empirical evidence offered in support of the opt-out revolution draws upon facts such as these: 22 percent of mothers with graduate degrees are at home with their children, one in three women with an MBA does not work full time, and 26 percent of women approaching the most senior levels of management do not want to be promoted. However, with information of this sort one needs a ouija board to detect a social trend, let alone a revolution. The fact that 57 percent of mothers from the Stanford University class of 1981 stayed home with their young children for at least a year gives no indication of whether the percentage of Stanford graduates remaining at home with their children has increased, decreased, or remained the same over time.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicinterest.com ...
Women want toasted ice.
Amen, Sister!!!!!!!!
The day I walked out on my ex-husband he begged me not to leave him. Not because he loved me, because he couldn't afford to pay the bills if I left.
Now wait a minute..did you read my entire post? I said the same goes for women satisfying men. It has to be 50/50, in a perfect world....LOL
Gee, in the ultra-liberal household I grew up in, I was taught that women's shoes (besides Birkenstocks) were an evil patriarchal plot. I was told women by and large hated heels. I was also taught that any guy who admired a woman in heels was a hideous male oppressor pig.
Of course, I was also taught that Reagan was going to blow up the world and that my chances of living to adulthood were pretty slim, what with the looming nuclear war and environmental crises.
Now that is a good relationship, the woman comes first in his life, and that man comes first in her life.
I mean, really now. Is this comfortable?
Ouch!
It's almost the the point where you women are wearing what they wore back in the Middle Ages.
I'll be more specific and say a really cute pair of boots!
Amen, sista.
sounds like my household.........of course my poor husband is the only male in a house full of females!!!!
" to come first in her man's life."
Oh, yeah.
Yikes! I feel sorry for you.
LOL!
They actually can be quite comfortable. After all, you're not really mashing your toes into the smallest part.
The purpose, btw, is to make your legs look longer. Optical illusion. :)
I can't disagree.
The latter is at least possible.
I won't argue with that one. When choosing a mate, I looked for one with the same qualities as he had. (my Daddy was my hero)
However,.....
Does that mean men just want their Mommy?
Ah, yes, indeed! Love boots!
BTW...those shoes you showed were pretty darn ugly, and the one pair of regular high heels would probably only be favored by strippers and porn stars. (Or wannabes) IMO, that is.
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.