Letters to the Editor
-
So, you parrot Noer's opinion of the studies he cites, (despite the fact that they don't say what he says they do) and WOMEN need to learn to debate?
First, it's interesting to me that there's a lot of men writing letters about how women need to refute the data with more data in order for it to be valid. All of them are - of course - agreeing with Noer's analysis of the data, instead of having read it themselves. This is apparent in how they keep parrotting Noer's opinions on it, when if they had read the studies they'd know that they refute Noer on their own.
It might benefit these men to read the data and form their own opinion, and to have a basic understanding that correlation is not causation before coming to tell women how to debate.
Second, if you were in a relationship that - despite you're working full time as well as your partner, you were also expected to work a second shift consisting of housework and child-care while your spouse sat on the couch watching t.v. you would become resentful and, if you had the means, you would leave. This is not rocket science. Funny how these boys looking for mommy-wives get all upset at the prospect of having to chip in a little, but then expect that their wives are oh-so-happy doing the exact same chores. These are not men Noer is speaking too. Men can take care of all business.
And Mr. No Name Given - perhaps if you spent less time posting dishonest, misogynistic spew and more time outside your house you might be able to meet a girl and thus aleviate the clear alienation, and bitterness in your attitude. You have my pity - yours must be a cold and lonely life. (feel free to flame me to show me just how angry and bitter you are).
-
Louis Dixon - Again: Go On - Keep Ignoring Me
I repeat:
I was working. (She made more when she was.) She cheated - while, supposedly, caring for her dying mother - and she stole all the money we had when she left. I've since discovered she'd been stashing thousands, in multiple bank accounts, over the course of the 20 yr. marriage.
She's a feminist who paid psychics and believed she was "intuitive", and a "goddess". She studied Qigong - though there's no such thing as "Qi" which means she was studying "nothing" - along with UFOs, homeopathy (water as a medicine, which was promoted in Salon) and every other BS New Age idea that you can imagine. I hate New Age beliefs now - I tolerated them before, with no real opinion one way or the other, but I hate them now. She got support in her beliefs from girlfriends, and gays, none of whom said a word to me because, I believe, they're prejudiced against straight males who, merely, don't buy into magical thinking bullshit. (Something the women here still haven't addressed.) I was perfectly nice to all of them - I didn't just "tolerate" anyone but "accepted" everyone - but, I know now, that was never going to be enough.
Just like the women writing here.
This isn't about fear of equality but hysterical feminism. A divorce isn't always both partner's fault. I resent that no-fault divorce laws (and feminist ideology) force me to accept any blame for the damage an unstable woman's beliefs can cause. I resent that domestic violence charges can be brought without proof - or the accused even being present. I resent that filing for divorce makes me suspect while she gets a free pass. I resent that angry words can be considered domestic violence while the emotional damage a woman can do to a man - which can inspire angry words - is considered par for the course. I resent that every feminist argument, here, is presented as if men are afraid of equlity - or all men are suspect - without even the consideration that some men can have no ambitions to hurt anyone, when we all know (many) women go through a "bad boy" phase - where that's what excites them - and can be as cruel as any man.
I was watching Oprah's show on Class In America yesterday and O asked a black woman if she'd marry a man with dirty fingernails and the answer was, "Sure, as long as he accepted me for the queen that I am." I was no "I'm the king of my castle" type. I loved my wife. I loved my marriage. The fact that no one seems to consider that that can be true is the travesty. Like the effort to replace Valentine's Day with Violence Against Women Day, it's just society headed into the wrong - and a course (sp?) - and destructive direction.
It's just unfair to us all.
-
Change of artwork Continued
Shame on Salon (and this from a longtime subscriber). The "Whitewash" continues. Now, their artist has isued an apology of sorts (not that an apolgy is even what I was looking for) -- and the funny thing is that the apolgy is highlighted as an editorial favorite, while none of the original posts noting the strange discrepancy are. Consequently, a reader just reading the editorial favorites would not even be aware of what the hullaboloo was -- even while the rest of us are placated. The similarity to Forbes' editorial policy becomes more and more haunting.
-
Re: "KStone: a Clarification"
Okay, that makes more sense. Must've been old age that caused you to mix up the numbers before? :-)
-
Re: Louis Dixon
I (a "grounded" feminist, I guess) read your comment with interest, particularly because it was a tale of one man/one woman/one broken marriage employed in the service of generalization. Sure, there are plenty of tales LIKE this one, but--as I'm sure you know, having nodded numbly through the purported empathies of friends--each experience is distinct in its effects on the individuals involved.
And yes, a lot of these laws and attitudes are just as anti-male as they are anti-female. But what I don't understand is the notion that this can somehow be blamed on feminism, as though we were all worse off the moment women started going "hang on a minute..." In this vein, it's interesting that your comment conflated instability and feminism. Your ex-wife's individual pathology is just that. Please don't confuse it with the desires of other women to achieve their dreams, find the right mate, have a career, and yeah, maybe fuss a little along the way. No one's denying men that right, so it seems only fair. And isn't that, ultimately, the very definition of feminism?