Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 220 Editor's Choice: 5
-
The thing is, alimony exists
[Read the article: Yours in holy "manimony"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In almost every single situation, for women. Unless she clearly makes more than her soon to be ex-husband, or the marriage has lasted a very short time, the argument is still going to be made that she deserves to live in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed during the marriage, whether she stayed at home, worked outside the home, whether there were children or not. It's not about the child support, which is a separate issue. Alimony is about spousal support and it's about what is 'necessary' to support the spouse in the lifestyle to which the spouse was accustomed to living during the marriage. That's the argument that is actually made. And, since it has almost always been the case that men have made more than women in the past, men have paid, for some period of time. It does tend to be shorter and less amounts of $$ these days, but they still tend to have to pay.
However, guess what - these things do get looked at on an individual basis. If one spouse makes significantly more than the other then that spouse should be the one who pays - no matter which sex that spouse happens to be, if this is the argument that is going to continue to be made. Otherwise, stop making the argument. You cannot say, well, men should be able to support themselves. Hell, most women should be able to support themselves. However, historically, it's not just a question of supporting themselves.
It's the 'lifestyle that was in place during the marriage' question that comes into play and as long as that is the question that holds true for women, it will hold true for men. Otherwise, change that standard. But, women don't want to change that standard - for them. But, here's a thought for women with significant assets going into the marriage - prenup.
-
Lewis' lectures at Oxford
[Read the article: I've got a bow and arrow, and I intend to use them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Should give a good indication of what he thought of women. If you aren't 'reading' for a science or maths degree, lectures aren't required at Oxford. You attend tutorials and hand in essays every week, and it has been this way for ages. Lectures are open to anyone who wants to attend them from all colleges but people rarely attend them if they aren't reading the subject. Therefore, who will actually attend lectures, well, varies from week to week. It's pretty well known at Oxford that if no male students showed up, he would simply say "I see no one is here today" and walk out again. Lovely.
-
Society is more accepting of tom boys then girly guys.
[Read the article: The education gender gap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think this is definitely true in children. I think girls/women still can get away with more as they get older without being judged as much. However, once you get out of college, there are certain things that society still expects.
If you've ever watched an episode of "What Not to Wear", most of these women are told that they have to dress in a much more feminine way to fit in. Their friends, relations and boyfriends/husbands are all pushing them to stop looking either masculine or androdenous. There are a few who keep trying to look like teenagers and won't grow up. However, in most cases, it's that they won't put on anything that makes them look feminine.
One of my friends and I were saying that if we had it to do over again, we'd have gone to charm school. Our mothers taught us to be direct, honest and not to bullshit people. It doesn't work. People want to be charmed, conned and all the stuff that you learn in charm school, that was traditionally associated with the feminine role, at least if you are a woman. It's sad.
-
If they are really so expensive that another will never be built here...
[Read the article: Nuclear bomb]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Then why has my father's former employer sold 3 nuclear plants in the US on top of the 4 they just sold in China? Admittedly, they are still in the design phase, but apparently, somebody in this country wants them. The company is hiring for the staff for all of the projects, both the ones that will be built here and the ones that will be built in China.
BTW, this article from a few weeks ago takes a quick look at the situation in Europe, even though the Germans are still saying no, and decided not to extend the life of the old plants or build new ones, the Italians say they will start to build a nuclear plant w/in the next 5 years after nothing for the last 2 decades. France has always been a huge user and innovator in the industry and the British are also looking to add new or build on to what they have in partnership with other companies. Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a0ZdShto.TUk&refer=europe
BTW, for the people who were talking about pebble bed reactors, it's my understanding that you have to build an awful lot of them because at this point they haven't figured out how to make the design work with a larger reactor. So, you would have to have many, many small reactors and they aren't sure that that is economically feasible. I see that they are giving it a try in China. But, at least it's a sign of real innovation in the industry.