NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, it feels like men are no longer useful to human women. :(

I think that whatever higher power exist should just give the final go ahead and have an alien race which DOES need men come down to earth and bring us to their watery homeworld with open arms, leaving behind all the human women to live in peace once and for all.

Are the aliens hot womens?

And that gets me to thinking. How fast would the space program progress if the scientists involved were convinced there is a planet out in space full of hot, lonely women?

LMAO! You're not aware of a little known fact:

Women secretly fucking hate each others guts. Moreso if they're pretty (regardless of whether there's men around to appreciate it).

They'd have one big catfight and kill each other off in a few years.

Personally, it feels like men are no longer useful. :(

We are. To each other. Fuck women, and instead fuck men.

Are the aliens hot womens?
Depends on wether sleeping with a humanoid fish-woman appeals to you. lol.

Basically, there are two options:

1: Go with them, and live happily ever after

or

2: Stay on Earth, and end up being literally stoned to death by angry women who would've been happy to see every man on Earth leave the planet.

LMAO! You're not aware of a little known fact:

Women secretly fucking hate each others guts. Moreso if they're pretty (regardless of whether there's men around to appreciate it).

They'd have one big catfight and kill each other off in a few years.

This is true. And guys secretly hate each others guts....when there's women around.

The real question is, do men really need women?

....

Uh...

And I believe the answer is yes. *goes back to looking at porn*

A planet ruled by women would not be more peaceful than the current one we have. The worst rivalries in workplace tend to be between women.

of course we're still useful. we pay for the sex, don't we?


...



what? :confused: ;)

and imagine the DIY disasters caused by women! and who would tell them there bums look big?

A planet ruled by women would not be more peaceful than the current one we have. The worst rivalries in workplace tend to be between women.
Not on that other planet. ;)

They're uber-peaceful, yet they're not lesbos. :)

Not on that other planet. ;)

They're uber-peaceful, yet they're not lesbos. :)

If they do something to human DNA to remove that destructive streak.

Personally, it feels like men are no longer useful to human women. :(

I think that whatever higher power exist should just give the final go ahead and have an alien race which DOES need men come down to earth and bring us to their watery homeworld with open arms, leaving behind all the human women to live in peace once and for all.
Why should interaction between males and females be contingent on need? Personally, I think men would be delighted to be in a situation where they knew their wife/girlfriend was with them out of love and choice instead of out of desperation. Only insecure little boys lament the fact that women are independent, and they only do so because they know they've got nothing to offer beyond their paycheck :P.

Why should interaction between males and females be contingent on need? Personally, I think men would be delighted to be in a situation where they knew their wife/girlfriend was with them out of love and choice instead of out of desperation. Only insecure little boys lament the fact that women are independent, and they only do so because they know they've got nothing to offer beyond their paycheck :P.
Way to spoil his rant. This thread could have been perverted into a comical fest of baseless chauvanistic humour, but noooooo, you had to come in here with your perfectly reasoned and logical argument, didn't you? ;)

Why should interaction between males and females be contingent on need? Personally, I think men would be delighted to be in a situation where they knew their wife/girlfriend was with them out of love and choice instead of out of desperation. Only insecure little boys lament the fact that women are independent, and they only do so because they know they've got nothing to offer beyond their paycheck :P.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Let we simpleton boys have a li'l stupid fun. You know we need to get goofy every now and then or we just end up fighting someone (or something). ;)

Way to spoil his rant. This thread could have been perverted into a comical fest of baseless chauvanistic humour, but noooooo, you had to come in here with your perfectly reasoned and logical argument, didn't you? ;)
Hehe.

I've been accused my whole life of "thinking like a man," but the one place I seem to fall short is in this area...I've never been able to understand why some men WANT to be with helpless, incompetant, whimpering females. I'm sure it makes you feel very important and all, knowing that somebody completely depends on you, but that's what babies and pets are for. Wouldn't it be much nicer to know you have a partner who you can count on, a partner who you know is choosing to be with you because they want to be, rather than because they need somebody to pay the bills for them?

Women do the same thing in a way, I suppose. Women seem to get a kick out of guys who are helpless around the house. "Oh, isn't he cute, he can't even separate loads of laundry!" "Men are so helpless when it comes to babies! Tee hee!" Personally, I don't find it cute when a grown man can't dress himself in the morning. I certainly don't see the attraction in a man who's basically looking to marry an indulgent Mommy-figure who will cook for him, clean up after him, and won't expect him to do any of his chores around the house. But I guess women who haven't got any real talents need to find a way to feel useful as well, and if they can find somebody who's helpless around the house then they can use that as a bargaining chip to make him pay the bills. Hooray for mutual helplessness!

Personally, it feels like men are no longer useful to human women. :(

I think that whatever higher power exist should just give the final go ahead and have an alien race which DOES need men come down to earth and bring us to their watery homeworld with open arms, leaving behind all the human women to live in peace once and for all.

Reminds me of the death by frou-frou (I think it was) episode of Futurama, where the skeletons of the dead males all had smiles & broken pelvises. :)

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Let we simpleton boys have a li'l stupid fun. You know we need to get goofy every now and then or we just end up fighting someone (or something). ;)
Oh, roger that. Let me help:

Womyn are amazon moon goddesses! We will need nothing of your hideous maleness in our Perfect Ovarian Paradise! Down with penis-bearing cavemen and all their scrotum-related stupidity! Grrrrrrr!

Are men no longer useful to women?.Good question

http://www.alibaba.com/photo/50032905/Carrot.jpg
:D:D :eek: :D

Personally, I don't find it cute when a grown man can't dress himself in the morning. I certainly don't see the attraction in a man who's basically looking to marry an indulgent Mommy-figure who will cook for him, clean up after him, and won't expect him to do any of his chores around the house.
Congratualations. You've just ruined any chance/ability/whatever I had to keep on living. Way to go.

*commits suicide*

Personally, it feels like men are no longer useful to human women. :(
That's not what the last five or so women I was with said. Actually, it's more what they didn't say that made the biggest impression. After all, how many ways can you interpret "OMG! OMG! OMG!" :D

Congratualations. You've just ruined any chance I had for a future. Way to go.

*commits suicide*
Wait, your future was contingent on me being attracted to you?

YAY! I'm important!

Reminds me of the death by frou-frou (I think it was) episode of Futurama, where the skeletons of the dead males all had smiles & broken pelvises. :)that episode was great...it pwned

Wait, your future was contingent on me being attracted to you?

YAY! I'm important!
I edited the post. :p

Reminds me of the death by frou-frou (I think it was) episode of Futurama, where the skeletons of the dead males all had smiles & broken pelvises. :)
Snu-snu. It was snu-snu.

"Perhaps we should allow the men to live..."
"But they made fun of women's basketball team!"
"What?! Did you explain that the women's good fundamentals make up for their inability to dunk?!"
"Yes! They laughed anyway!"
"The men must die!!!"

I edited the post. :p
Curse you and your editting!

Curse you and your editting!
I edited it BEFORE I read your post, actually.

Hehe.

I've been accused my whole life of "thinking like a man," but the one place I seem to fall short is in this area...I've never been able to understand why some men WANT to be with helpless, incompetant, whimpering females. I'm sure it makes you feel very important and all, knowing that somebody completely depends on you, but that's what babies and pets are for. Wouldn't it be much nicer to know you have a partner who you can count on, a partner who you know is choosing to be with you because they want to be, rather than because they need somebody to pay the bills for them?

Women do the same thing in a way, I suppose. Women seem to get a kick out of guys who are helpless around the house. "Oh, isn't he cute, he can't even separate loads of laundry!" "Men are so helpless when it comes to babies! Tee hee!" Personally, I don't find it cute when a grown man can't dress himself in the morning. I certainly don't see the attraction in a man who's basically looking to marry an indulgent Mommy-figure who will cook for him, clean up after him, and won't expect him to do any of his chores around the house. But I guess women who haven't got any real talents need to find a way to feel useful as well, and if they can find somebody who's helpless around the house then they can use that as a bargaining chip to make him pay the bills. Hooray for mutual helplessness!

Hey, I guess i think like a woman in that regard, because I agree totally with you. I really don't find myself attracted to "helpless, incompetant, whimpering females"...a man having a power complex like that is pretty unhealthy in my opinion. And sexist, obviously. I don't want a dependant, I want an equal. :)

Now, that doesn't mean i'm not helpless around the house. The catch is finding a woman who is also helpless around the house. Domestic types are out for me. *gazes around room* Yep. Definitely. Although I can dress myself. That's something, right? :p

Snu-snu. It was snu-snu.

"Perhaps we should allow the men to live..."
"But they made fun of women's basketball team!"
"What?! Did you explain that the women's good fundamentals make up for their inability to dunk?!"
"Yes! They laughed anyway!"
"The men must die!!!"

Snu-snu, that was it! Thanks. That episode was hilarious. :D

My girlfriend actually likes to look after me. Cook meals, clean the house, etc. I think it's a mothering instinct. She also earns more money than me too, so I really can't complain. I can't imagine why she'd keep me around. ;)

Personally, it feels like men are no longer useful to human women. :(
sorry if I missed it but, were men ever useful to women? and what did we use them for?

Hey, I guess i think like a woman in that regard, because I agree totally with you. I really don't find myself attracted to "helpless, incompetant, whimpering females"...a man having a power complex like that is pretty unhealthy in my opinion. And sexist, obviously. I don't want a dependant, I want an equal. :)
Ooooh, stoppit, you're turning me on...

Now, that doesn't mean i'm not helpless around the house. The catch is finding a woman who is also helpless around the house. Domestic types are out for me. *gazes around room* Yep. Definitely. Although I can dress myself. That's something, right? :p
Oh, I'm not saying everybody should be a perfect homemaker. Lord knows I face a bi-weekly dilema of "clean up, or just move to a new apartment?" But I'm certainly not about to start looking for a boyfriend who is too inept to get a real job and who I therefore can force to become my live-in housekeeper.

Hey, I guess i think like a woman in that regard, because I agree totally with you. I really don't find myself attracted to "helpless, incompetant, whimpering females"...a man having a power complex like that is pretty unhealthy in my opinion. And sexist, obviously. I don't want a dependant, I want an equal. :)

Now, that doesn't mean i'm not helpless around the house. The catch is finding a woman who is also helpless around the house. Domestic types are out for me. *gazes around room* Yep. Definitely. Although I can dress myself. That's something, right? :p

Definitely, dressing yourself is a very important step down the path to adulthood & independance. Don't rush it though, you don't want to find yourself in over your head! :p

Definitely, dressing yourself is a very important step down the path to adulthood & independance. Don't rush it though, you don't want to find yourself in over your head! :p

I should just wear my birthday suit. It's easier, and I get free advertising.

Snu-snu, that was it! Thanks. That episode was hilarious. :D

My girlfriend actually likes to look after me. Cook meals, clean the house, etc. I think it's a mothering instinct. She also earns more money than me too, so I really can't complain. I can't imagine why she'd keep me around. ;)
I don't see anything wrong with a woman liking to cook or a man happening to suck in the kitchen. It would be just as wrong to tell women, "you can't like domestic things because you're female" as it is to tell them they MUST like those things because they are female.

The point here is that it's about willingness to pull your own weight. If a man uses, "Gee honey, you know how helpless I am around the house" as an excuse to never have to clean or cook or change a diaper then he's pretty damn worthless. Likewise, a woman who insists that she just can't possibly learn how to unclog a drain or mow the lawn is wussing out and shouldn't be given the time of day. It's the old adage of "the less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do."

Ooooh, stoppit, you're turning me on...

:D

Oh, I'm not saying everybody should be a perfect homemaker. Lord knows I face a bi-weekly dilema of "clean up, or just move to a new apartment?" But I'm certainly not about to start looking for a boyfriend who is too inept to get a real job and who I therefore can force to become my live-in housekeeper.
Well, of course. We're in complete agreeance then. Although if circumstances necessiated it, i'd be perfectly happy to be a stay at home parent, or "housekeeper" (even though circumstances would probably be a lot more in favour of paying someone to do a decent job instead :D). I'd prefer to work, but meh, whatever fits in. The whole social stigma against men doing domestic work doesn't really affect me.

Of course they still need us. Without us, they wouldn't have anything to bitch about. :p

:D


Well, of course. We're in complete agreeance then. Although if circumstances necessiated it, i'd be perfectly happy to be a stay at home parent, or "housekeeper" (even though circumstances would probably be a lot more in favour of paying someone to do a decent job instead :D). I'd prefer to work, but meh, whatever fits in. The whole social stigma against men doing domestic work doesn't really affect me.Preach on, brotha!

What I love is that a recent study I read about in the paper found that married couples that share housework more equally report more satifying sex lives. Feminism gets you laid, boys, so pay attention! :)

I don't see anything wrong with a woman liking to cook or a man happening to suck in the kitchen. It would be just as wrong to tell women, "you can't like domestic things because you're female" as it is to tell them they MUST like those things because they are female.

The point here is that it's about willingness to pull your own weight. If a man uses, "Gee honey, you know how helpless I am around the house" as an excuse to never have to clean or cook or change a diaper then he's pretty damn worthless. Likewise, a woman who insists that she just can't possibly learn how to unclog a drain or mow the lawn is wussing out and shouldn't be given the time of day. It's the old adage of "the less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do."

Yep, spot on. Can't argue with that.

Of course they still need us. Without us, they wouldn't have anything to bitch about. :p
Women would still have their periods. 'Nuff said.

sorry if I missed it but, were men ever useful to women? and what did we use them for?
To keep the species alive, of course. But with technology rapidly advancing, men are no longer useful, since before you can say "men are evil", artificial sperm will soon be created in petri dishes, and then you women can finaly be rid of us.

In other words, men were NEVER useful to women. Ever.

Preach on, brotha!

What I love is that a recent study I read about in the paper found that married couples that share housework more equally report more satifying sex lives. Feminism gets you laid, boys, so pay attention! :)

Yay!

You could always combine the housework and your sex life, too.

Hmm. The possibilities are (almost) endless.

Yay!

You could always combine the housework and your sex life, too.

Hmm. The possibilities are (almost) endless.
"Hey honey, you want to buff the floors again, wink wink?"

:D


Well, of course. We're in complete agreeance then. Although if circumstances necessiated it, i'd be perfectly happy to be a stay at home parent, or "housekeeper" (even though circumstances would probably be a lot more in favour of paying someone to do a decent job instead :D). I'd prefer to work, but meh, whatever fits in. The whole social stigma against men doing domestic work doesn't really affect me.

Yep, I reckon it'd be pretty sweet to stay at home & look after the kids. I'd be happy to let my gf earn the dollars. Having said that, I don't have any kids, so it's pure speculation on my behalf. Probably after two weeks of shitty nappies I'd be well & truly sick of it and ready to handball it on.

To keep the species alive, of course. But with technology rapidly advancing, men are no longer useful, since before you can say "men are evil", artificial sperm will soon be created in petri dishes, and then you women can finaly be rid of us.

Here's the thing:

Maybe women no longer need "men," in the sense that a person's maleness does not make them automatically necessary. Similarly, a person's femaleness doesn't automatically make her necessary. But I definitely depend on some people who happen to be male, just as I depend on some people who happen to be female. I don't depend on them BECAUSE they are male or female, of course, but I still "need" people who happen to be men and people who happen to be women.

I think that's a healthy way for the world to work. Men shouldn't be needed because they are men, they should be needed for their individual talents and personal roles.


In other words, men were NEVER useful to women. Ever.
Wait, so because some day it may be possible to procreate without males that means women NEVER needed men? Interesting theory...can you explain more about how future=past?

The vast majority of geniuses are men - something to do with men having more extremes of intelligence, either really stupid or really clever, whereas there are less stupid and less really intelligent women. So, yeah, without men technology and science wouldn't advance as fast.

Wait, so because some day it may be possible to procreate without males that means women NEVER needed men? Interesting theory...can you explain more about how future=past?
....

:confused:

*head explodes*

You got me there. :p lol

To keep the species alive, of course. But with technology rapidly advancing, men are no longer useful, since before you can say "men are evil", artificial sperm will soon be created in petri dishes, and then you women can finaly be rid of us.

In other words, men were NEVER useful to women. Ever.
oh that. I was thinking about other things I "use" my husband for....... anyway he is still "useful" to me.

"Hey honey, you want to buff the floors again, wink wink?"

I'd prefer to put the lamb in the oven, hint hint.

The vast majority of geniuses are men - something to do with men having more extremes of intelligence, either really stupid or really clever, whereas there are less stupid and less really intelligent women. So, yeah, without men technology and science wouldn't advance as fast.

On the other hand, there'd be less fuckups. :p

The vast majority of geniuses are men - something to do with men having more extremes of intelligence, either really stupid or really clever, whereas there are less stupid and less really intelligent women. So, yeah, without men technology and science wouldn't advance as fast.
Ahh, I was waiting for one of these. There's always some guy (notice how it always just happens to be a guy) who steps up with random assertions that are unsupported by evidence, all of which just happen to point to men being smarter, more creative, more inventive, more capable, or more essential for the survival and progress of the human species...isn't it funny how that seems to work?

oh that. I was thinking about other things I "use" my husband for....... anyway he is still "useful" to me.
How is he "useful"? :confused:

How is he "useful"? :confused:
oh I use him for many things

sex, opening jars, killing bugs (but not spiders), chasing pigs out of my yard, changing diapers when I don't want to, driving me around (so I don't have to deal with traffic), doing my laundry, sex, cooking when I am sick, painting my toenails when I have a backache, :D

and a whole lot of other stuff that is too mushy to post (like love, companionship, best friend, spiritual guidance, accountablility, sex, sex,ect.)

but to be fair he uses me for most of that too, (not the painting of the toenails of course, but other personal grooming services have been provided.)

oh I use him for many things

sex, opening jars, killing bugs (but not spiders), chasing pigs out of my yard, changing diapers when I don't want to, driving me around (so I don't have to deal with traffic), doing my laundry, sex, cooking when I am sick, painting my toenails when I have a backache, :D

and a whole lot of other stuff that is too mushy to post (like love, companionship, best friend, spiritual guidance, accountablility, sex, sex,ect.)

but to be fair he uses me for most of that too, (not the painting of the toenails of course, but other personal grooming services have been provided.)
No need to say "sex" more than once. lol.

Personally, it feels like men are no longer useful to human women. :(


If you don't use them anymore, please, by all means, let us gay men have them.

I'm sure I can think of something to make them useful. Especially the cute ones. :p

Ahh, I was waiting for one of these. There's always some guy (notice how it always just happens to be a guy) who steps up with random assertions that are unsupported by evidence, all of which just happen to point to men being smarter, more creative, more inventive, more capable, or more essential for the survival and progress of the human species...isn't it funny how that seems to work?


Ahem. It's a scientific fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4355355.stm

"Men also have another reason for feeling upbeat about their genetic lot. New Scientist reports that although men are more likely to be mentally retarded, they are also more likely to be geniuses.

Although the average IQ of men and women is equal, men are more frequently found at both extremes of intelligence.

This is because, if you have very good intelligence genes on your X chromosome, it pays not to have them muffled by more average genes on another X chromosome. "

I never said men were more intelligent - I said they had more extremes of intelligence. Which is true.

And actually it seems to me far more common for women to be constantly asserting that they are more intelligent, pointing to school test scores where girls often outperform boys. However, men and women are of equal intelligence - girls do better at school because their style of learning is catered to more. For example, in the UK they found that the introduction of coursework into the national curriculum made it easier for girls to do well but a lot harder for boys.

No need to say "sex" more than once. lol.
sorry the first time I repeated it was an accident. and then I realized that I did it and thought I better add it two more times.

my main problem today is that my husband is home sick from work, :( which means that I need to leave him alone, but my kids are also gone so here I am alone in the house with my man and...........oh okay TMI sorry.........:( ;)

sorry the first time I repeated it was an accident. and then I realized that I did it and thought I better add it two more times.

my main problem today is that my husband is home sick from work, :( which means that I need to leave him alone, but my kids are also gone so here I am alone in the house with my man and...........oh okay TMI sorry.........:( ;)
There's no such thing as "too much information" in the Plutonian Empire, sweetheart. ;)

sorry the first time I repeated it was an accident. and then I realized that I did it and thought I better add it two more times.

my main problem today is that my husband is home sick from work, :( which means that I need to leave him alone, but my kids are also gone so here I am alone in the house with my man and...........oh okay TMI sorry.........:( ;)

http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/malos/spock.gif

"This is fascinating, please, continue."


I couldn't find the original pic, so I had to caption it. Bugger.

Ahem. It's a scientific fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4355355.stm

"Men also have another reason for feeling upbeat about their genetic lot. New Scientist reports that although men are more likely to be mentally retarded, they are also more likely to be geniuses.

Although the average IQ of men and women is equal, men are more frequently found at both extremes of intelligence.

This is because, if you have very good intelligence genes on your X chromosome, it pays not to have them muffled by more average genes on another X chromosome. "

And the funny thing is, nothing in that article supports the idea that the increased number of male geniuses has anything to do with genetics. Indeed, the article points out men are more likely to bear genes that lead to retardation, but doesn't say a single thing about them carrying "smart genes." The idea of intellectual "muffling" from a second X chromosome is total bunk, as any halfway decent researcher could tell you. Try getting your information from solid, peer-reviewed primary sources, instead of from newspapers that editorialize and misinterpret like it's their job.

Use your brilliant male brain for one moment, would you? Why might men be more often recognized as geniuses? Might it have something to do with the fact that women typically have far less access to education? That women are, too this day, largely discouraged from putting their individual pursuits ahead of their role in breeding and home-making? That women still face an uphill battle for equal consideration and attention in most fields?


And actually it seems to me far more common for women to be constantly asserting that they are more intelligent, pointing to school test scores where girls often outperform boys.

Sorry, but I think both sides do that equally. Indeed, right now people are bitching far more about girls outperforming boys than they ever did back when girls were the ones doing poorly.

However, men and women are of equal intelligence - girls do better at school because their style of learning is catered to more. For example, in the UK they found that the introduction of coursework into the national curriculum made it easier for girls to do well but a lot harder for boys.
This is a terrific myth for sexists. Male/female distinctions in "learning style" are invented by society, and then blamed for problems. Scientifically, evidence suggests that gender-based distinctions are much less significant than income-based distinctions, for instance, yet all we can ever seem to talk about is the battle of the sexes. It's pretty pathetic.

all we can ever seem to talk about is the battle of the sexes. It's pretty pathetic.

And creates a lot of crap stand-up comedy:

- Comedienne: "Men are stupid!" (phrased differently to appear like a clever joke)
- Female audience laughs.

Personally, it feels like men are no longer useful to human women. :(

I think that whatever higher power exist should just give the final go ahead and have an alien race which DOES need men come down to earth and bring us to their watery homeworld with open arms, leaving behind all the human women to live in peace once and for all.

You are obviously not around the right women.

My wife, for example, needs me in more ways than one.

And creates a lot of crap stand-up comedy:

- Comedienne: "Men are stupid!" (phrased differently to appear like a clever joke)
- Female audience laughs.
I don't find any of it funny...that kind of humor is always just variations on a few tired themes:

"Take my wife, please!"

"My [girlfriend/wife/mistress/sister] is so crazy! Aren't all women emotional and irrational beings who are completely incomprehensible to intelligent, reasonable, rational men like us?"

versus

"All men are helpless cavemen who can't cook! Isn't that funny?"

"I'm bitchy because I've got my period. No, that's not just some flimsy excuse I use to be able to throw tantrums! It's because I've got PMS! HEAR ME ROAR!!"

Christ...try reading the quoted part will you?

"Men also have another reason for feeling upbeat about their genetic lot. New Scientist reports that although men are more likely to be mentally retarded, they are also more likely to be geniuses.

Although the average IQ of men and women is equal, men are more frequently found at both extremes of intelligence.

This is because, if you have very good intelligence genes on your X chromosome, it pays not to have them muffled by more average genes on another X chromosome. "

I'm not a scientist and don't claim to understand why - I simply remeber watching a documentary on it before, and mentioned it. You went on a massive rant about how much of a bad person I was for pointing this out, so I provided evidence. You just ignored the part of the evidence that proved I was right.

I never claimed that requiring different learning styles for different genders is natural, it is mostly through socialisation. However, the school system is still failing males - if it weren't, neither girls nor boys would underperform, since neither is more or less intelligent. You can't just turn around and say "Well, before, when girls underachieved - THAT was a great injustice. Now boys are underachieving though, it's their own damn fault, stupid boys!"

By the way, labelling me as a sexist just because I don't believe women are smarter than men doesn't make it so.

You are obviously not around the right women.
Either that, or:

1: I never leave the house
2: I watch too much TV
3: I still live with my parents

Choose one, or choose all. :p

;)

Either that, or:

1: I never leave the house
2: I watch too much TV
3: I still live with my parents

Choose one, or choose all. :p

;)

Then you've probably heard women tell you to "get a life". Happened to me when I was young, too.

Getting a life radically improves your success with women. You can also then avoid women who don't have a life.

Nothing worse than two people together who don't have a life.

I don't find any of it funny...that kind of humor is always just variations on a few tired themes:

"Take my wife, please!"

"My [girlfriend/wife/mistress/sister] is so crazy! Aren't all women emotional and irrational beings who are completely incomprehensible to intelligent, reasonable, rational men like us?"

to which the feminists go: "OMFG, hang that awful awful man"

"All men are helpless cavemen who can't cook! Isn't that funny?"

"I'm bitchy because I've got my period. No, that's not just some flimsy excuse I use to be able to throw tantrums! It's because I've got PMS! HEAR ME ROAR!!"
to which the men do absolutley nothing (apart from complain amongst themselves)


sexism runs both ways nowadays. sod equality, feminists these days seem to think they're superior to men, and thats just not cool. we need that masculinist movement!

Christ...try reading the quoted part will you?
Honey, I read it. I even responded directly to it.

I'm not a scientist and don't claim to understand why - I simply remeber watching a documentary on it before, and mentioned it. You went on a massive rant about how much of a bad person I was for pointing this out, so I provided evidence. You just ignored the part of the evidence that proved I was right.
No, darling. For one thing, that wasn't a rant at all. If you think that was a rant, your tender feelings are in for some bruising around here. :)

Second, I didn't ignore your evidence, I explained why it was crap. The scientific article itself didn't provide any evidence for "muffling" by an extra X...that was pure editorializing by the writer of the newspaper article. It's science fiction.


I never claimed that requiring different learning styles for different genders is natural, it is mostly through socialisation. However, the school system is still failing males - if it weren't, neither girls nor boys would underperform, since neither is more or less intelligent.

Wait, you're the one claiming males are innately inclined to be at the extremes. Wouldn't that mean that girls SHOULD consistently out-perform the average boy in a typical school? I mean, you'd have a few boys that were geniuses, but they'd probably get sent to the special genius schools or have private classes. In the typical school, you'd have more females out performing males than males out-performing females.

I think there are plenty of changes that should be made in our educational system, but none of them have anything to do with "girl learning styles" or "boy learning styles." What needs to change in that arena is the way we socialize kids. For example, girls are encouraged to be quiet and sweet while boys are encouraged to be loud and rowdy...do you think that might have just the tiniest bit of impact on how well they succeed in an environment that calls for attention and dicipline? Maybe instead of forcing schools to cater to disruptive students, we should encourage all students to have some self-control. Just a thought.

You can't just turn around and say "Well, before, when girls underachieved - THAT was a great injustice. Now boys are underachieving though, it's their own damn fault, stupid boys!"

I'm not; my point was that people are doing the OPPOSITE of that. When girls were failing, people said that it was just because girls are innately less able to succeed. Then, when girls started doing better in some subjects (like English classes), they decided girls were good at language but bad at math. Then, when girls started catching up in ALL subjects, they decided that the educational system (which they pretty much hadn't changed a bit) was suddenly biased in favor of the "female learning style," and now they're trying to change things to cater to male students.


By the way, labelling me as a sexist just because I don't believe women are smarter than men doesn't make it so.
By the way, claiming I labeled you "sexist" is a pretty weak straw man. I said that a particular myth was great for sexists...I never said you were one of them. If you want to attach that label to yourself then that's your business.

We need that masculinist movement!

No we don't.

I'm perfectly secure in my masculinity, thank you. I'm also able to differentiate between humorous jokes and crap humor. I never had any problems when I sometimes point out a joke is demeaning. And I point out those demeaning to both sexes. It's served me well.

Then you've probably heard women tell you to "get a life".
Mostly from my mom. lol.

Personally, I'm happy living at home, with my family. Admittedly, I need to keep a regular sleep schedule so I'm awake with my family, instead of sleeping all day.

In fact, next summer, we're all going to australia on a family trip, after we sell gramndma's old house (she's living with us now :) ). That means, more family time for me and the rest of us. yay! :D

to which the feminists go: "OMFG, hang that awful awful man"

Actually, most of the time they don't say a thing, because if they do it gets chalked up as one more reason why women don't have a sense of humor. You'd probably be surprised at how many things women hold in when they are around men...it's sad, but I've seen it for myself.

to which the men do absolutley nothing (apart from complain amongst themselves)
Are you kidding?! Men have never seemed to have trouble bitching about uppity women, in my experience. Also, do remember the gender ratio in comedy...how many female comedians are there, and how many male? Womenfolk simply have more male comedians available to bitch about :). Until there's an equal number of male and female comedians, I don't think we can make this comparison very well.

And I think both sides SHOULD be louder about complaining when it comes to this stuff. I don't think women should bitch more and men should shut up, or anything, I just think women have farther to go until they reach high enough levels of bitching...men also need to bitch more, they're just closer to the goal so to speak.

MORE BITCHING OVER BAD COMEDY!!! That's what we really need.


sexism runs both ways nowadays.

It always has. Women participate in sexism just as much as men, even when it hurts women.

sod equality, feminists these days seem to think they're superior to men, and thats just not cool. we need that masculinist movement!
A person who believes women are equal to men is not a feminist, by definition. A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes. A male who feels the sexes are equal in value is a feminist.

A person who believes women are equal to men is not a feminist, by definition. A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes. A male who feels the sexes are equal in value is a feminist.

I try to avoid labelling myself. Rather than be a whatever-ist, I just try to be rational. If I haven't seen someone attempt to do something, I don't know whether they are capable. I can't just assume from their being male or female.

A person who believes women are equal to men is not a feminist, by definition. A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes. A male who feels the sexes are equal in value is a feminist.

I used to hold the door open for EVERY stranger who was behind me, male or female, because I believed in the equality of the sexes. And equality of treatment, including being nice to people.

But, after severe abuse for being nice, I no longer hold the door for able-bodied women between the ages of 18 and 40. I let the door hit them.

I've hit quite a few feminists who thought I was going to hold the door for them. This was revealed in the short but satisfying arguments that came after they were hit by the door.

I also do not give up my seat to able-bodied women. When they ask if I would mind giving up my seat because their feet are tired (this happens often on the Metro train), I ask if they are a feminist. If they say, "Yes" I refuse to give up the seat.

While I would like to be nice to everyone, when so many people have been complete asshats to me in the name of "feminism" at times when I was just doing for them what I did for EVERYONE, they can get stuffed.

Honey, I read it. I even responded directly to it.

No, darling. For one thing, that wasn't a rant at all. If you think that was a rant, your tender feelings are in for some bruising around here. :)

Second, I didn't ignore your evidence, I explained why it was crap. The scientific article itself didn't provide any evidence for "muffling" by an extra X...that was pure editorializing by the writer of the newspaper article. It's science fiction.


Wait, you're the one claiming males are innately inclined to be at the extremes. Wouldn't that mean that women SHOULD consistently out-perform the average boy? I mean, you'd have a few boys that were geniuses, but they'd probably get sent to the special genius schools or have private classes. In the typical school, you'd have more females out performing males than males out-performing females.


I'm not; my point was that people are doing the OPPOSITE of that. When girls were failing, people said that it was just because girls are innately less able to succeed. Then, when girls started doing better in some subjects (like English classes), they decided girls were good at language but bad at math. Then, when girls started catching up in ALL subjects, they decided that the educational system (which they pretty much hadn't changed a bit) was suddenly biased in favor of the "female learning style," and now they're trying to change things to cater to male students.


By the way, claiming I labeled you "sexist" is a pretty weak straw man. I said that a particular myth was great for sexists...I never said you were one of them. If you want to attach that label to yourself then that's your business.


*Sighs* Yes, i'm sure the New Scientist just made it up out of thin air like the dirty evil chavuantist pigs that they are - they thought that females would be too stupid to understand and get away with it, but their malicious plan was foiled! And they would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling wenches!

If you *really* insist then I will keep looking for the detailed scientific explanation of why it is so. I heard the explanation once in the aforementioned documentary, but it went over my head. However, it seems a little petty when a respected scientific magazine says it to be true just to cross your arms and say they must be lying because it says something you don't like.

The school statistics I examined when studying education and gender included all schools throughout the UK (There are no state schools for the gifted here that I am aware of, but if there are then they are included as well). Girls consistantly outperformed boys in all areas but some sciences and maths, although they were catching up boys in these areas - shouldn't be so since both are of equal intelligence.

The school system HAS changed over the years, such as a massive decrease in the importance of exams, which boys aren't bad at, and the increase in the importance of coursework, which girls are far better at because they put more work in. Then there's indirect effects, like the vast majority of primary school teachers now being females, which makes boys associate learning with females and thus think that to concentrate on school work is an effeminate thing to do. There are also factors which have aways being there which benefit girls but were previously unknown because the bias was so heavily in favour of boys, such as girls and boys developing intellectually at different rates so boys get left behind at certain stages of school life when girls are intellectually more developed, and then having to catch up quickly when they start developing at a quicker rate.

Oh and claiming that an arguement I have just used is a "Terrific myth for the sexists" seems to me to be implying that I am one. But what would I know? I'm just a dumbass male right?

Not on that other planet. ;)

They're uber-peaceful, yet they're not lesbos. :) Hey, an entire planet inhabited by a slave race!

Yes, of course women need men. A servant needs a master.

Hey, an entire planet inhabited by a slave race!

Yes, of course women need men. A servant needs a master.
Uh huh.

And you are who?

Hehe.

But I guess women who haven't got any real talents need to find a way to feel useful as well, and if they can find somebody who's helpless around the house then they can use that as a bargaining chip to make him pay the bills. Hooray for mutual helplessness!


:sniper: I love it when morons equate skill=money. I guess that means that a $1000/night hooker is much more skilled than the $0/week earning housewife that idles her time away raising three well adjusted future leaders of humanity. Enabling her mate to supply the necessities purchased with income from a position in the labor force he maintains due to support from his mate that allows him the 3hrs per night that he spends at home preparing for the next days work.

:sniper: I love it when morons equate skill=money. I guess that means that a $1000/night hooker is much more skilled than the $0/week earning housewife that idles her time away raising three well adjusted future leaders of humanity. Enabling her mate to supply the necessities purchased with income from a position in the labor force he maintains due to support from his mate that allows him the 3hrs per night that he spends at home preparing for the next days work.
ditto. except -morons +people. (don't want to flame, besides Bottle has made intelligent statements before so labeling Bottle as a moron would actually be lying (for me anyway) )

I read an article that said that they did a study where a stay at home mom did twice as much work as a person with a full time job (and that was a stay at home mom with only one kid, I have two)

I don't stay at home because I have no talents, I stay home because my kids deserve that from me, and I don't try to "con" my husband into bringing home money or sit on the couch eating bon-bons (I wish) and he isn't helpless either. (Thank God)

Oh please, in the next 10 years or so women will be begging for people like me.

Oh please, in the next 10 years or so women will be begging for people like me.

Are you killing all other men off then?:p

Are you killing all other men off then?:p
No, but most other men will metaphorically shoot themselves with metaphorical bullets in the foot by that time.

No, but most other men will metaphorically shoot themselves with metaphorical bullets in the foot by that time.

I already have if it makies you feel any better.:(

"men, cant live with em, cant live with out em."

well thats what my friends and i say.......we think its true......

to which the men do absolutley nothing (apart from complain amongst themselves)

Haha, I came up with a tactic of my own...

If you're being subjected to random "PMS" bitchiness (it's impossible to tell sometimes whether or not it's put on or genuine. I have my suspicions with some people.)...bite your tongue. A couple of days later, when the time is right, inflict some random bitchiness of your own. When you get the "Hey, what's the deal?" line, explain: "I'm having my man-period. I've allocated a minimum of three days every month whereby I can be as much of a bitch as I like. Because, y'know, I feel like it, and I can get away with it."

It may not be the wisest tactic by any means, but it is pretty funny to see the reaction.

*Sighs* Yes, i'm sure the New Scientist just made it up out of thin air like the dirty evil chavuantist pigs that they are - they thought that females would be too stupid to understand and get away with it, but their malicious plan was foiled! And they would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling wenches!

*Sigh*

Look, non-scientists misinterpret scientific data all the time, and not just on this kind of topic. This isn't news. It's not about the battle of the sexes. It's about a reporter stating a claim that is not supported by the data of the study.



If you *really* insist then I will keep looking for the detailed scientific explanation of why it is so. I heard the explanation once in the aforementioned documentary, but it went over my head. However, it seems a little petty when a respected scientific magazine says it to be true just to cross your arms and say they must be lying because it says something you don't like.

The thing is, the data of the study does not support the claim. Whether or not a magazine or journal is respected doesn't necessarily confer infalibility upon everything they publish. It's important to keep this in mind, particularly when reading popular journals (like Science and Nature) that tend to be aiming at wider audiences and taking on more dramatic subjects. This doesn't mean the publications are untrustworthy, just that you need to always be a critical thinker.


The school statistics I examined when studying education and gender included all schools throughout the UK (There are no state schools for the gifted here that I am aware of, but if there are then they are included as well). Girls consistantly outperformed boys in all areas but some sciences and maths, although they were catching up boys in these areas - shouldn't be so since both are of equal intelligence.

What about the possibility that the measurements employed to evaluate "intelligence" do not accurately reflect the skills required to succeed in a particular field (like school work, for instance)? Intelligence tests are a fuzzy subject, which is one of the reasons it's impossible to say whether men are "smarter" than women (or vice versa). Be sure to read, in excruciating detail, the methods of any intelligence test system before you try to cite it. I say this as a person who has personally administered several different "IQ" tests as a part of research...I've had a devil of a debate with myself over methods in my own studies, because so many "IQ" evaluations don't reflect what most people think they do.


The school system HAS changed over the years, such as a massive decrease in the importance of exams, which boys aren't bad at, and the increase in the importance of coursework, which girls are far better at because they put more work in.

Depends on what schools you go to. Also, the differences between male and female test-taking and male versus female time committments to coursework have nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with socialization in most cases. Boys are told to go out and play sports after school, and are often discouraged from sitting inside with a good book. I've seen this happen to my own younger brother, and experienced the opposite sort of pressure when I was in public school


Then there's indirect effects, like the vast majority of primary school teachers now being females, which makes boys associate learning with females and thus think that to concentrate on school work is an effeminate thing to do.
I'd love to see numbers on this. Since when is the majority of primary school teachers being female a new thing? Maybe it's just regional, but where I come from primary school teachers have always been predominantly female...it dates back to the day when school marm and nanny were really the only two out-of-home jobs that women took.

EDIT UPDATE: I've done a little poking around, and I think you're going to have a hell of a time correlating diminishing male school performance with an increase in the proportion of female primary school teachers. From what I've see, the proportion is actually becoming MORE equal as time goes on.

According to my research, the "feminization" of American primary schools began at least as early as 1840, if not earlier (a subject open for debate, but not relavent in this case). By 1900, 75% of teachers in America were female. Lest you think this is an exclusively American phenomenon, the first school teacher in Montreal was female. As of 1870, 50% of Canada's teachers were women. By 1959, women composed 80% of the teachers in the Canadian education system.


There are also factors which have aways being there which benefit girls but were previously unknown because the bias was so heavily in favour of boys, such as girls and boys developing intellectually at different rates so boys get left behind at certain stages of school life when girls are intellectually more developed, and then having to catch up quickly when they start developing at a quicker rate.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that in-group variations are greater than between-group variations in a lot of cases. For instance, there is greater developmental variation between boys who come from high-income families and boys who come from low-income families than there is between boys and girls of the same income bracket.


Oh and claiming that an arguement I have just used is a "Terrific myth for the sexists" seems to me to be implying that I am one. But what would I know? I'm just a dumbass male right?Making a mistake in reading comprehension doesn't make you a "dumbass." Everybody makes mistakes. Just try to cool down a little bit.

I try to avoid labelling myself. Rather than be a whatever-ist, I just try to be rational. If I haven't seen someone attempt to do something, I don't know whether they are capable. I can't just assume from their being male or female.
That's fair. Personally, I don't like being called "feminist" in some situations, because it does carry some connotations that I don't like. I'm bummed that this is the case, but I'm also bummed that the word "gay" can't be used to simply mean "happy" any more.

I used to hold the door open for EVERY stranger who was behind me, male or female, because I believed in the equality of the sexes. And equality of treatment, including being nice to people.

But, after severe abuse for being nice, I no longer hold the door for able-bodied women between the ages of 18 and 40. I let the door hit them.

I've hit quite a few feminists who thought I was going to hold the door for them. This was revealed in the short but satisfying arguments that came after they were hit by the door.

I also do not give up my seat to able-bodied women. When they ask if I would mind giving up my seat because their feet are tired (this happens often on the Metro train), I ask if they are a feminist. If they say, "Yes" I refuse to give up the seat.

While I would like to be nice to everyone, when so many people have been complete asshats to me in the name of "feminism" at times when I was just doing for them what I did for EVERYONE, they can get stuffed.
This is one of the reasons why men should be as eager for gender equality as women are; it will make your lives much less confusing. Women often carry around a whole lot of baggage because of the inequalities they have experienced, and on a grumpy day these things will sometimes get magnified. Women also may misinterpret your actions because men have, in the past, used them for negative purposes. Wouldn't it be nicer if you could just hold the door for anybody you like, and didn't have to worry about it becoming another chapter in The Battle Between The Sexes?

:sniper: I love it when morons equate skill=money. I guess that means that a $1000/night hooker is much more skilled than the $0/week earning housewife that idles her time away raising three well adjusted future leaders of humanity. Enabling her mate to supply the necessities purchased with income from a position in the labor force he maintains due to support from his mate that allows him the 3hrs per night that he spends at home preparing for the next days work.You need to re-read my posts on this thread.

If a couple finds that the best arrangement for them is to have the female partner stay home while the male partner works outside the home, that's their business and I don't really care. What I take issue with is women who brag about their inability to balance their own checkbook, or women who insist that they can't possibly figure out how to change a lightbulb and so why doesn't their big strong hubby come do it for them. Just like I take issue with men who insist that they can't possibly figure out how to change the baby's nappy, so a woman should come do it for them.

Some women happen to prefer doing things like cooking, or cleaning, or taking care of kids. Some men happen prefer doing those things. I have no problem with a person of either gender choosing their life-path based on what is best for them. I simply have a problem with people assuming that a woman will automatically like/be good at certain things while a man will like/be good at other things. I also have a problem with people pretending that males or females are just innately unable to do certain mundane things (like mow a lawn or vaccuum a rug) and thus the other sex should always do those chores. Those are excuses, personal failures, and should not be applied as general rules.

Haha, I came up with a tactic of my own...

If you're being subjected to random "PMS" bitchiness (it's impossible to tell sometimes whether or not it's put on or genuine. I have my suspicions with some people.)...bite your tongue. A couple of days later, when the time is right, inflict some random bitchiness of your own. When you get the "Hey, what's the deal?" line, explain: "I'm having my man-period. I've allocated a minimum of three days every month whereby I can be as much of a bitch as I like. Because, y'know, I feel like it, and I can get away with it."

It may not be the wisest tactic by any means, but it is pretty funny to see the reaction.
I've got an even better one...I used it on my ex-girlfriend once and it magically "cured" her PMS.

When she acts bitchy and then tries to use her period as an excuse, just turn it right around on her; "Gee, honey, since you can't possibly control your PMSing emotions, I guess I had better not take your word for anything right now. You might be saying things you don't really mean, and you would regret them later on. To be on the safe side, I probably ought to simply ignore everything you have to say until you're done with your PMS, right?"

Haha, I came up with a tactic of my own...

If you're being subjected to random "PMS" bitchiness (it's impossible to tell sometimes whether or not it's put on or genuine. I have my suspicions with some people.)...bite your tongue. A couple of days later, when the time is right, inflict some random bitchiness of your own. When you get the "Hey, what's the deal?" line, explain: "I'm having my man-period. I've allocated a minimum of three days every month whereby I can be as much of a bitch as I like. Because, y'know, I feel like it, and I can get away with it."

It may not be the wisest tactic by any means, but it is pretty funny to see the reaction.
lol nice idea, but i kinda like... you know... keeping my penis attached to myeslf ;)

I've got an even better one...I used it on my ex-girlfriend once and it magically "cured" her PMS.

When she acts bitchy and then tries to use her period as an excuse, just turn it right around on her; "Gee, honey, since you can't possibly control your PMSing emotions, I guess I had better not take your word for anything right now. You might be saying things you don't really mean, and you would regret them later on. To be on the safe side, I probably ought to simply ignore everything you have to say until you're done with your PMS, right?"

You're right, that is better. And as a matter of fact, i'm going to steal it. :D

lol nice idea, but i kinda like... you know... keeping my penis attached to myeslf

Works best over the phone. ;)

lol nice idea, but i kinda like... you know... keeping my penis attached to myeslf ;)
Pfft, you should have thought of that before you became a straight male. :)

You're right, that is better. And as a matter of fact, i'm going to steal it. :D

Just do keep in mind...I used it on my EX-girlfriend :).

I read an article that said that they did a study where a stay at home mom did twice as much work as a person with a full time job (and that was a stay at home mom with only one kid, I have two)

Sadly, the numbers show that working moms end up having to fit in about 2/3 of the work of a stay-at-home mom, too. It's true that a stay-at-home parent will often end up working as hard as somebody with a full time job (depends on the job and the household, of course), but mothers who work don't get to just come home and put their feet up in most situations. They are full-time parents AND full-time employees...and that's more time than there is in any single day!

Let me be clear: I do NOT disrespect stay-at-home parents, and I don't mean to devalue the work they do. My point is that you can't claim that "working mom" and "stay at home mom" are two completely different categories, when the work they end up doing overlaps so much. This is gradually becoming true of working fathers, as well...everybody's losing out, basically, because fewer and fewer people can afford to have either parent stay home even if they want to do so.

Just do keep in mind...I used it on my EX-girlfriend :).

Heh, no problem there, i'm single. Doesn't mean I can't use something similar on whomever is being bitch of the day, though. :D

Sadly, the numbers show that working moms end up having to fit in about 2/3 of the work of a stay-at-home mom, too. It's true that a stay-at-home parent will often end up working as hard as somebody with a full time job (depends on the job and the household, of course), but mothers who work don't get to just come home and put their feet up in most situations. They are full-time parents AND full-time employees...and that's more time than there is in any single day!

Let me be clear: I do NOT disrespect stay-at-home parents, and I don't mean to devalue the work they do. My point is that you can't claim that "working mom" and "stay at home mom" are two completely different categories, when the work they end up doing overlaps so much.
I wasn't trying to compare stay at home moms to working moms because that really isn't a fair comparison at all, my mom worked, I know I am lucky not to have to. The study I believe was just comparing stay at home moms to women who have full time jobs who don't have kids. I do a whole lot more than housekeeping too, and I get angry when I feel like someone is belittling my role, I am sorry if I misdirected that anger on to you, and it sounds like I did. ;)

I wasn't trying to compare stay at home moms to working moms because that really isn't a fair comparison at all, my mom worked, I know I am lucky not to have to. The study I believe was just comparing stay at home moms to women who have full time jobs who don't have kids. I do a whole lot more than housekeeping too, and I get angry when I feel like someone is belittling my role, I am sorry if I misdirected that anger on to you, and it sounds like I did. ;)
I understand. This is a tough subject. I was brought up by two wonderful working parents, and I get really upset when people act like working moms or working dads are "part-time parents." In fact, I don't know that I've ever met somebody who didn't have strong feelings about some part of this subject...when it comes to our parents and our children, most of us can get a little prickly :).

I understand. This is a tough subject. I was brought up by two wonderful working parents, and I get really upset when people act like working moms or working dads are "part-time parents." In fact, I don't know that I've ever met somebody who didn't have strong feelings about some part of this subject...when it comes to our parents and our children, most of us can get a little prickly :).
yeah. I fully respect my mom for her contribution of working full time and taking care of me. I just wish people would respect my contribution of staying home with my kids and not act like I am less intelligent, or have a low self esteem, or am my husband's slave, or not a "real woman", or lazy, or any of that other crap people say about stay at home moms.,

*not directed at you, just in general.

yeah. I fully respect my mom for her contribution of working full time and taking care of me. I just wish people would respect my contribution of staying home with my kids and not act like I am less intelligent, or have a low self esteem, or am my husband's slave, or not a "real woman", or lazy, or any of that other crap people say about stay at home moms.,

*not directed at you, just in general.
I've got a male friend who's going through that now because he's staying home with his new baby...he and his wife felt like it was the best situation for them, but society isn't quite on board. He's lost a lot of friends because they make that whip-crack noise and joke about him being "the Missus" all the time. People act like he's got to be either gay or "whipped" to want to stay home with his own kid. It sucks.

I've got a male friend who's going through that now because he's staying home with his new baby...he and his wife felt like it was the best situation for them, but society isn't quite on board. He's lost a lot of friends because they make that whip-crack noise and joke about him being "the Missus" all the time. People act like he's got to be either gay or "whipped" to want to stay home with his own kid. It sucks.
yeah, my husband (who is about as masculine as they come) would stay home with the kids, if I could make the same amount of money that he does ( I can't :( ) I am sure that he would get a whole lot of crap though if we ever 'switched roles'

yeah, my husband (who is about as masculine as they come) would stay home with the kids, if I could make the same amount of money that he does ( I can't :( ) I am sure that he would get a whole lot of crap though if we ever 'switched roles'See, and that's the kind of arrangement I've got no problem with. I just get grizzly at people who decide that Mommy must stay at home and Daddy must work, even if it's not really practical.

That kind of thing can suck for BOTH parents, too. My boyfriend comes from a rigidly traditional family in which his dad loathed his job and his Mom wasn't good with kids. His dad slogged away at jobs he couldn't stand because he was told he had to be the one to "bring home the bacon", while his mother grew increasingly miserable because she didn't get a chance to continue her education and her career. They both have ended up feeling like they never got to live their own lives. That kind of thing is so sad to me. In a better world, families wouldn't have to feel pressured to conform to some silly gender-based pattern, and people could choose what they wanted to do without first having to make sure they were born with the right set of genitals.