Letters to the Editor
-
Let me rephrase that
You created some conversations that showed that since the male didn't do what the female felt was needed, the female was forced to punish the male, either by calling a plumber and not doing the work herself and taking a joint decision to spend money and turning it into a punitive action on the woman's part.
-
I like more realistic conversations.
If you are going to make one up try to make it believable. First, what does any of this have to do with sex? It is truly exploitative to bring sex into a plumbing problem, but you are probably kinkier than I.
YOU WHO CANNOT READ, the first conversation makes it clear the the couple had already discussed that the husband would do the plumbing. If you wanted to change the gender, it would work just as well, as EVERBODY should avoid nagging.
As to the second scenario, what is wrong with washing one's own underwear?
You see, the reason women nag is that they become frustrated with promises unfulfilled. In each scenario that I constructed the woman was able to relieve her frustration by making decisions on her own. The real problem with marriage and why people fight so much is that they think every little thing has to be negotiated. That's tedious and boring.
However, my ex-husband purchased an expensive car without consulting me. I think that is going a bit far. You ("feminist" that you are) probably think that is okay.
-
You seem to think spending money punishes the husband.
Why is that?
-
Thank for your support Accipeter.
I have noticed a willful misreading of posts on Broadsheet.
BTW, I admire all the skills you have acquired. My own consist of sewing, baking bread, castrating calves, and putting together unassembled bookshelves.
-
AKA "Word Snob"???
AKA - I love your stuff, but you are an English teacher and you write THIS?
"I tell all my women friends who complain about the things their husband's don't do ...."
I mean, ya gotta go to the trouble to put in that ridiculous apostrophe, so WTF?
Also, for everyone, when someone's not interested it's not "disinterest" for cryin' out loud! It's "uninterest." Two totally different things.
-
re: men and women
I'm not convinced that men make a big attempt to impress women when they talk. Or if they do, they aren't very good at it!
AKA Smith - were you kidding with your letter about how men and women should give up on each other apart from reproduction? If you're not kidding, that's the saddest letter I've ever seen you write. That's not the way I feel at all. I have equal numbers of male and female friends, and my best male friend - my husband - is a delightful conversationalist. Life is not a contest between men and women. When it becomes one, both sides lose.
Regarding the differences between men and women - every study ever done on this subject has found that the range of differences WITHIN sexes is greater than the differences BETWEEN the sexes. Saying, "Well, men as a group tend to, therefore this individual man must be..." is... ahem, how shall I put this... just plain stupid.
So quit it, all of y'all.
Sorry, had to get that out of my system.
-
Thank you uptoolate.
I am a lousy proofreader and I have written the last 4 posts or so in a short amount of time.
I don't teach English anymore and I don't post on the internet to show off my English skills. I am also up too late.
However, I do appreciate the corrections.
-
Your assumptions
The husband would do the work, why?
The husband is better at plumbing than the woman, why?
The husband's priorities need to be the same as the wife's, why?
The wife's judgment is better than the husbands, why?
The wife can spend $300 for plumbing without discussing it with her husband, why? Can the husband spend $300 for something he feels the home needs without consulting the wife?
The point about bringing sex into it, is that this is a negotiation between two loving couples, and if you can turn it into a win-win situation, and a playful situation, why not? If you can increase the husband's priority of the task by throwing in some playful sex, why not, doesn't everyone win? But it was really just an example. When you negotiate in a win win positive sum attitude it helps both sides to "expand the pie" by finding ways to help both sides win. Nagging is a zero sum, everyone loses situation. If you want to make it "I'll wash your car" fine.
The problem with the wash situation, was that even though it was his week to do the wash, when the woman says, "you took too long, I couldn't wait, I did mine but not yours." that's just a big passive aggressive argument. Why this passive aggressive crap? How about.... Honey, I know you want to watch the football game, but I really would like the clothes washed and I have a lot of other chores. Can we take five minutes to get it started? Or you can try, "I am getting a bit nervous about having the wash done by tomorrow. It is your week, so I am thinking of just doing a small load of my clothes, and then you can do the rest later.".
Both of those approaches respect the man, respect his choices, make it clear what your needs and desires are, and provides respect and trust that he will fulfill his promise and do the wash on time, but at a time of his choosing.
-
Saying, "Well, men as a group tend to, therefore this individual man must be..." is... ahem, how shall I put this... just plain stupid.
THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.
Along with similar statements about women.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT DRIVES PEOPLE CRAZY ABOUT CRAZY TALK ABOUT THE PATRIARCHY.
The patriarchy is evil, all men are evil, all men are rapists, women will not start wars, blah blah blah blah blah.
It is ridiculous and offensive that feminism has moved to this point. It is unscientific. It is grossly demeaning to men AND women.
It is useful in only one realm, and that is a zero-sum game of politics. And that is what so much of modern feminists as can be seen on their websites is about.
Even now, NOW is lobbying for sole custody of children and not for a rebuttable presumption of shared custody. Why? Because NOW thinks that women are better and that that justifies putting in a systemic bias in the courts.
And look at Amanda Marcotte and other blogrolled feminists that insist that false allegations do not occur, and even if they do, men have it coming to them. The Duke Students did rape. And if they didn't they had it coming to them because they are men.
People should be treated as equals.
The feminists that support this call themselves "equity feminists." By and large they are libertarians, which is a damned shame. Modern mainstream femininsts call equity feminists by the name "antifeminists." Why? Because equity feminists believe people should be treated as equals.
Allie, I am glad to know you are an equity feminist striving for equality between the sexes and respectful of human rights abuses regardless of the gender of the person involved.