If he is an unemployed househusband he will be treated like a loser by 99.99999% of women no matter what he does. Men know that all the talk about how all the problems are due to the fact that men are not diligent and conscientious maids and nannys is crap, so they might as well do what they want.

apparently Palestinains CAN, under some circumstances, (and with the help of walls) refrain from making war on Israel.

let's just save time, hypocrisy and stupidity by making any sexual relationship not SPECIFICALLY APPROVED by govt. a crime. New problems require new thinking.

if someone finds it worth it to tolerate the frustration involved in denying themselves something, they will deny themselves, if they don't they won't. It is that simple. EVERYTHING else is about making it easier so more people will be willing to do it.

so I guess that might be a question: just how many did, by comparison to the total population, or the total black population, or the total black population at certain times and in certain places, etc. etc.

hopefully this is in the process of changing but things would not be as they are if their insanity and stupidity were as obvious as they should be.

CANNOT be totally straight. We are talking basic hyrdraulics here.

It is arguabley a matter of semantics, there are some people who can do both but have a preference and if they prefer women they are straight and if they prefer men they are gay and if they have an equal, or nearly so, reaction they are bi (although at least for men every objective study has shown that there is not such thing as an equal reaction).

Bi to me means you are capable of sex with either. Totally straight, or totally gay, means that you could no more sexually benefit from interacting with the "wrong" gender than hunger could be satisfied by eating rocks. Most straight, or should it be "straight" men are actually like this, I think (I know many are not). It is annoying to be constantly told, at least by implication, that only people who are "flexible" are truly in touch with themselves, blah blah blah.

but a great many (I suspect, but can't prove, a majority) don't and could never have any interest in doing so.

if ALL, or the vast majority, of men were capable of benefiting from it.

because we all pay, one way or the other, for talibanic sexual hysteria.

they expect, or believe they can compel, Israelis to be the only people in the world who accept this treatment and not respond when they have the power to do so.

it seems inconceivable that this could happen, so what is the problem, other, I suppose that change isn't happening fast enough. It's true of course that "nothing has changed" in the sense that we don't have a woman as president, yet, but if you look at the way that most people live, everything has changed already.

Limits to womens' power are not inevitable, what is inevitable is limits on mens' and womens' abilities to want the same things the same way, although this really shouldn't matter when it comes to the ability to do a job.

that there is even the SLIGHTEST chance that he would have been nominated, let alone elected? Yes it may be taking women longer for women than for blacks, IN SOME WAYS, to change things but that is because they are asking for, and ultimately getting, so much more.

and that they should think and act accordingly then everything will be fine.

what does this realization consist of in practice though, other than simply thinking and acting the way the formerly oppressed group(s) wants you to. Obviously more than an exchange of views is wanted.

maybe it is has something to do with some insecurity regarding the fantasy that being young and cool is enough to make the issues disappear: the culture wars started long before the sixties and it will take a lot more than obama or anyone else has to make them go away. These superficial narcissistic generational obsessions, from whichever side they arise, are one reason the right has been as successful as it has in recovering from one disaster after another for 150 years, at least.

mccain might never have nominated palin and obama might not be president.

but if he had had been able to make a credible appeal to moderates, which the choice of palin made impossible, I think he would have had a better chance.

all of the so called "meaning" that is attached to the so called differences is either the debris of 20 years of wing nut propaganda or the kind of psychobabble pop culture issue free celebrity bs that has always provided so much cover for the right wing. By buying into this "transcend the issues/past" junk an opportunity is provided for the right to abandon currently untenable positions without admitting they were wrong about the clintons (or anything) or being held accountable in any way; "we are all transcending the old divisions together". (Just like Strom Thurmond "changed his mind" about race) Thanks to this type of amnesia the right anticipates that they will soon have an opportunity to peddle their same old garbage as something new and useful. I am guardedly optimistic that obama, if not many of his fans, is smart enough to prevent them from having this opportunity any time soon.

so even though he didn't do the shooting he is an ongoing party to the murder.

knowing that he is helping someone get away with murder.

so if people have to prioritize their efforts it makes sense to help them first.

and she is probably defending herself and/or is the victim of abuse and PSTD and deserves a break.

and they believe, apparently, that firing up the troops with righteous indignation, even if it involves living in a complete fantasy world, is helpful now.