Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Does everything have to be a political issue?
Hassling the shit out of him about it is going a bit far. It is his head , you got to just let it go.
And @2: Registered European: Agreed. I hope to never see or hear that word again. Amen.
I get that you like long hair but you're not the one who has to deal with the consequences and upkeep. Your husband clearly doesn't want long hair so let it go already.
Despite what the less refined and educated among us would have you believe, blumpkin rhymes with pumpkin. Repeat after me:
blumPkin
BLUMPKIN
B L U M P K I N
B L U M P K I N
Not "blumkin". Christ.
Gee, no wonder he doesn't want to accommodate you.
OTOH, it takes years to grow your hair out - if Mr. WMWW invested years into growing and not washing his hair, heedless of the impact on his health & comfort, and the comfort of the people around him (his kids!), there are some pretty nasty dynamics at work here.
Umm, long hair is a pain in the ass, blows in your face, requires a ton of shampoo and conditioner, gets tangled much more easily, takes a lot more time to comb out and to blow dry every day, etc etc etc... ?
Well guys, hello?? WOMEN deal with this every day because almost universally, guys wants us to have long hair. How about if we kept our hair cropped short like most guys keep theirs? Would guys put up with buzz cutted women everywhere? How much of our mornings spent fussing over our long hair would we get back if we could step out of the shower, shake out our crew cut, and head out the door? And how about if we agreed to grow it out after months of being asked/begged to by our bfs or husbands, only to retaliate by never washing or combing it so that it became disgusting?
Her husband is being an asshole about the hair thing. No question.
Not to mention us wearing and being expected to wear exactly what turns our boyfriends and husbands on. I mean, holy shit.
Anyway, what have you done that's so wrong? You screwed up by bringing Native American dress into the equation. I'm not sure if you can now ask him to grow his hair without making him think you're a racist, but I'd encourage you to try. Perhaps you could also start obviously ogling other long-haired men -- of all races -- that you see out and about, so he'll see that the hair, rather than the Native trappings, is what you desire.
Velvetbabe @15/16: Has it occurred to you that you don't HAVE to wear "exactly what turns your boyfriends and husbands on"? If you don't like to, then don't. Cut your hair. Some men like that.
I'm not sure how much of the difficulty lies in the men who will walk if their every demand isn't met, and how much lies in the other women who will undercut demand-refusers by growing their hair as long as Cher's if it gives them a competitive edge. It feels a bit chicken-and-egg.
I suspect it's too late for the marriage, although it is sociologically interesting that it appears acceptable for an OS-partnered woman to ogle other men in an attempt to get her partner to change his appearance. I'm starting to worry about the children.
http://www.returnofkings.com/26763/girls…
Yes Velvetbabe, funny isn't it?
My hair has several dreads now.I got behind with the brushing and detangling.
It depends on her motivation, and only she knows that.
Please do. I love that look on women.
My parallel is Miss Carroll in Lord Edgware Dies, who is so certain of her facts that the details don't matter. She "knows" the visitor was Jane Wilkinson and therefore speaks of seeing the visitor's face even though nobody could have done so from where she stood. As Poirot sums it up, between the deliberate lie and the disinterested inaccuracy it is often very difficult to tell.
I have you trumped; I look awful even with my best hair - although at least some people like the colour.
I think she was testing him, but I get the vague impression that she would've given that an A+, not an F.
Also: The only thing that interests me on the topic is a conclusive verdict on whether it's "blumkin" or "blumpkin." Maybe we need another poll?
I vote for "blumpkin" because the "blump" sound is more fun to say than "blum."
By all accounts, the two groups apparently hate each other, and have nothing in common other than being popular targets. But it's not surprising; out-group homogeneity bias is a thing.
I have fantastic and unusual hair when it's long. It's also tons of work, and makes me feel like someone I'm not. So I mostly keep it short. I inevitably get "Oh, you cut your hair!" (in a sad tone) from a large subset of people when I switch. But I feel more like myself. And the subset of people who are attracted to that are the right ones! (Actually, my current hairstyle gets far more compliments than ever before--probably because it's weird--weird may not be the same as attractive to many people, but it is to some.)
That said, I have grown my hair out at a partner's request twice, and kept it long for a year or two--and then went back. I'm happy to accommodate for a while, if it pleases them. But I'm not going to stay that way forever.
The joy of hair is it grows back.
Sounds like LW2 has gone about her request the wrong way. The pushing, the racial overtones, may have soured this topic for her man forever. Too bad. I'd say leave it for a few years, and then bring it up again in a different context (sheepishly, probably).
Should everyone have to enjoy being exoticized, not just by the world but by the person who's supposed to get them the most?
Kinda like a Judge John Hodgman podcast!
Actually, would be really cool if Dan got John Hodgman on the savage lovecast sometime. And if Dan did a guest judging on the JJH podcast.
I can only imagine that WMWW would be venturing into more dangerous territory by ogling other men with long hair in an attempt to influence her husband. She is on the verge of doing real damage to the relationship, if she hasn't done so already. Let it go and have the long haired men your fantasies.
PUAs want to use the system to their advantage. MRAs want to fix the system, and some attempt to do so. MGTOWs either think the system is too broken to fix or think they don't have the wherewithal to use it themselves.
Some MGTOWs hate PUAs for being able to get the women they want; other MGTOWs hate PUAs for being p*-chasers. MGTOWs hate MRAs less, but think they are wasting their time and risking their well-being by trying to engage with women on (more) equal terms.
PUAs hate MRAs for trying to inject equality (for men) into the system when the PUAs themselves are using (or attempting to use) systemic inequality to advantage. PUAs despise MGTOWs but like their existence in the way that Alphas appreciate that Betas exist.
MRAs hate MGTOWs for giving up despite recognizing what they see as systemic problems. Some MRAs hate PUAs (slightly less), but the overall view tends to a smug moralist line that PUAs will end up alone and lonely.
No. Were you really trying on this? "The people I hate only have opinions because they're vile" is never the correct guess. The world does not actually contain any villains from the old Captain Planet cartoon, even when it makes you feel good to imagine that the people you like to punch down at are implausibly terrible.
The way I heard it explained--by someone who did the research, and is reasonably trustworthy--was this:
PUA: "This is the test you're forced to take, so you may as well learn how to pass it. Otherwise, you're one of those shitty losers who failed the test."
MRA: "You shouldn't have to pass that test in order to be treated like a human being. Studying for the test is supporting the test."
PUAs think MRAs are failures, and MRAs think PUAs are collaborators, and I suspect they're both right. There seems to be exactly zero overlap between the two groups.
It makes me think of The Lion in Winter when Eleanor tells Henry that she doesn't have to prevent his annulling their marriage, but only to delay it. Despite Henry's current leonine status, the amount of time required to marry Alais and produce a new heir capable of standing alone against Richard...
LW concludes: [So I guess that makes me a blasphemous pervert, but really? Is asking for a couple of braids really so wrong?] which reminds me (to return to Lord Edgware Dies) of Jane Wilkinson's maxim that, if one speaks the truth in a sufficiently silly way, nobody will believe it.
From the perspective on this side of the gender line, that similarity trumps any difference which may exist. In other words: THERE IS NO "TEST."
They're all worthless.
Who are you trying to convince? I'm not sure why you think broadcasting your ignorance at people less ignorant than you is a good use of your time.
"From the perspective on this side of the gender line, that similarity trumps any difference which may exist. In other words: THERE IS NO "TEST.""
Why do you keep telling me what it's like to be a straight man? Lived experience: Don't bother lying to other people about theirs. This is like basic humanity 101.
The fact that you know fucking well that there's a test--given how often you demonstrate your total commitment to punishing people who fail--just adds an extra layer of shitty icing on the shitcake you're being. But you don't have to be; you could decide just to ignore society's failouts, rather than lying about them publicly in order to justify shitting on them.
Don't shit on the downtrodden. Is it really that hard? Do you just not do empathy toward people less fortunate than yourself? And here I thought you were doing better.
In this case, it is wrong because it's not the request that's the problem, it's the lack of respect. She's not just asking him to grow out his hair, she's trying to pressure him into doing so after he has said no multiple times and even grudgingly did it for her once, against his own wishes. Badgering your partner to do something they don't want to do is a lack of respect for his preferences, especially since the daily onus of abiding by her wishes will be on him. Basically, she's saying that her desires are more important than his, even though he is the one who will have to care and maintain his hair, not her.
In your case, it's not a problem to maintain your pretty hair for your husband because you like doing it already. For whatever reason - maybe he has really thick hair that eats hairbrushes, or is tired of picking long hair out of the drain - this guy does not want to do it, and that is his right. If it was a guy pressuring his girlfriend to get a boob job because he prefers DDD boobs, would you think she should do it even though she doesn't want to?
So which group of loser are you, PUA or MRA?
Whatever the spelling, I'm ready to drop this subject altogether. Griz personally has far more pressing issues to deal with these days than the PC handling of a crude, newly established vulgar slang term.
@15 Velvetbabe: Yeah, I know, huh?
@41 Hunter, please see my above comment to @11 Sea Otter.
But once the ethnic stuff kicked in I started wondering what LW2 might have in mind for me: A striped pj with a cool tattoo on my left wrist? Or maybe the oh-so-sexy Hassidic “goth” look?
I’ll stick to the leggings and wig, but only in the winter.
@41 Hunter, your etymological analysis is interesting. I thought maybe it had something to do with "bump" or "lump," plus some kind of onomatopoeic pooping noise, plus maybe rhyming slang with "pumpkin," but I think what you suggest makes more sense.
Otherwise, ugh. I'm onto to another subject.
Undead @49: MRA, obviously. He's happily married (I know, right?) so he doesn't hate women for not sleeping with him, he just hates women.
I still have no idea what the "test" is; that's Eud's term. All I know is that the prize for passing it is pussy. Kind of take it as a compliment that he considers me more fortunate than himself, though -- by whatever twisted logic he may be employing. I wouldn't chalk up not hating half the world to "good fortune," but tomato tomahto.
Feel free to stop being a lying shitstain, then. Seriously, any time you want. It'd at least get some variety in your life, even though your scummy peers would immediately turn on you thinking they smelled weakness.
"I still have no idea what the "test" is; that's Eud's term. All I know is that the prize for passing it is pussy."
See this? This is an example of not stopping. If you don't like being called a liar, lie less. It's very simple. And you could easily be less of a shitstain: the first step is to start treating people like people, rather than looking for every opportunity (real or imagined) to hurt anyone you can get away with hurting.
And why is it not at all shocking that you read Dr. Nerdlove? I'm not going to, obviously. If I felt like watching someone shit on society's losers for being losers, I'd go look at literally anything in the world.
Have you ever, even once, seen someone being bullied and not immediately joined in?
Try it. It could change your whole life.
Yes, actually.
You forget: I also like women. So I do, in fact, know exactly what it's like to face the sort of rejection MRAs[1] whine about. I know exactly what it's like to send out multiple messages on OKCupid -- in my case, each one individually tailored to indicate I'd read the woman's profile and liked her, rather than just mass-mailing everyone within certain search parameters in desperate hope that someone, anyone, would be gullible enough to reply -- and get zero response. I know exactly what it's like to have a female friend that you fancy, but it feels awkward to make a move, or you do make a move and end up embarrassed[2]. I know exactly how that can spur resentment. And I can understand that if you've been raised to believe men and women are inherently different, and that relationships are in fact some sort of "test" rather than compatible people finding each other, that that resentment, if unchecked by logic and empathy, can boil over into the type of anger and hatred Elliot Rodger felt when he decided to take his revenge.
But I am capable of checking that resentment, by the logic that yes, it does suck, but people are entitled to embrace or reject anyone for whatever reason they choose. And hating them for it only serves to compound the problem, because most women run a mile from men they see displaying the sort of overt hostility and entitlement one's lizard brain foists upon one when one doesn't get what one wants. Not every woman you fancy is willing to fuck you[3]? Me neither, pal. Them's the breaks. They're entitled to reject you. Accept it graciously. Be a human, not a lizard.
Yes, my situation is different to yours because I also like men. Which just means that I've lived this story from both sides. And this is how I know neither "side" is inherently evil, that neither is "downtrodden", that there is no "test", and that people who believe they're victims of some sort of gendered conspiracy are just making themselves less desirable and more the butts of jokes. It's not a sexy look, on any gender.
[1] Using "MRAs" as a shorthand for all woman-resenting acronym groups.
[2] I also know that this happens to women who approach men, too. Rejection isn't the one-way street MRAs believe it to be.
[3] MRAs-in-general "you", not Eudaemonic "you".
(1) Gender-neutral selective service and/or the abolition of selective service
(2) Prohibition of medically unnecessary circumcision of male infants
(3) Support resources for male victims of sexual assault and domestic violence
(4) Funding for research and development of male birth control options other than condom and vasectomy. (For instance, the overwhelming majority of funding for Vasalgel research came from MRA donors.)
The most recent victory MRAs are celebrating was successfully getting infant changing tables placed in many men's restrooms. Those woman-hating assholes, amirite?
MRAs don't "hate women." That would be the manosphere/ Red Pill/ PUA/ RoK crowd. The majority of MRAs I've met are women. Many resent third-wave feminists, primarily because third-wave feminists are inclined to strawman them by equating them with PUAs and/or dismiss the issues they care about as petty (as opposed to pressing women's rights issues like the pink tax and manspreading.)
Imagine, every time the Westboro Baptist Church made an appearance, both the media and social media referred to them as "Jehovah's Witnesses":
"Jehovah's Witnesses are making their small children carry around signs that say 'God hates fags.'"
"Jehovah's Witnesses are protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers and hate crime victims."
Regardless of what you think of Jehovah's Witnesses, do you think that's a fair characterization? Do you not see what a grotesque strawman that is?
That's basically what referring to manosphere/ Red Pill/ PUA/ RoK as "MRAs" does. If you disagree with MRAs, fine, but actually address them on their own terms, instead of equating them with a crowd they want nothing to do with (and that wants nothing to do with them).
This gal ain't shavin' off her shaggy mane fer anybody! That was a vow I made after
my four year enlistment in the the U.S. Navy---and also after my divorce.
If I was a Star Wars action figure, I'd be Chewbacca.
She was describing something that was arguably rape. You don't secretly hope, on her behalf, that being raped was actually kind of nice. That's really fucked up. I understand what you were aiming at -- nobody should actively hope someone they love had a miserable time, either -- but still, swing and a miss, Dan.
Being afraid that she actually liked the cuckolding scene is not the same thing as hoping she had a shitty time getting raped. CINOVA probably would have preferred that it hadn't happened at all. And if you take his girlfriend at her word, that's what she would have preferred too.
To be fair, his attitude does have a whole lot of wrongheadedness in it. Chiefly, not taking her at her word when she described her experience. Second, a sense of shaming her for participating in this thing that she was coerced into and which is now potentially going to cost her the next boyfriend, too. Third, that she told him about this in direct response to a story he himself was telling, about an impending threesome at some party. (Why was that line edited out in the weekly version?) She wasn't testing him, she probably thought he was testing her.
The length of the hair depends on the person who has the hair.
I take your point that the rights popularly associated with so-called MRAs are:
A: Erasing any progress woman have made towards equality for their gender, and
B: Their supposed "right" to fuck any woman they want.
In my experience, those who don't support these ideas, but do support the four you listed, tend to shy away from the acronym MRA and call themselves "equalitists" or some such. Or even "feminists." Shame that word has picked up so much baggage as well.
Avast @68 - Good catch! Why did Dan change the letter from this:
"My new girlfriend blurted out the other week that she had a cuckold past with her ex-husband. She told me when I was recounting a party I had attended and noted that it appeared a threesome would occur with one guy and two girls. (It was just an observation.) She says her ex badgered her into arranging "dates" with strangers and that he picked the guys."
To this:
"My new girlfriend blurted out that she had a cuckolding past with her ex-husband. She says her ex badgered her into arranging "dates" with strangers and that he picked the guys."
I especially like the part in the original letter where he protests (too much?) that "It was just an observation" Yeah, right. To me, that "observation" is the whole key to the letter. Who here thinks he wasn't fishing when he told her that? It seems to me that he was the one who brought up the MFF scenario out of the blue, and she responded by telling him about her traumatic cuckold relationship. Perhaps she saw where the conversation was going and she wanted to nip it in the bud". That seems much more likely to me.
I also love how she "blurted it out" while he was just making an "observation".
Hating the progress of feminism and the moves towards equality is hating women collectively.
Half-depressingly, most of the young gays sympathetic to Men's Issues are trying to be The One Good Gay and prove how cool they are by raving about how much they love homophobic jokes and can't stand other gays (usually flamboyant ones) or the LGBTQetc. community. (They're a large part of why I actually want the "LBT community" that I've seen a number of feminists mentioning to kick the G out formally and officially, but then I'm an old separatist.) I have mostly pleasant exchanges with one such youngster, who, it having been established that I enjoy being disagreed with by the rising generation because a major point of my activist period was to produce a climate in which intellectual diversity wouldn't be an unaffordable luxury, has walked it back a little.
Also "I also love how she "blurted it out" while he was just making an "observation".
Yeah, he has the self-awareness of a toddler.
WMW - My husband is Native American. I'm white. We've been together 16 years, raising a couple kids. We love each other very much, so this isn't a deal breaker.
What is this potential deal breaker? Having kids together or the not-white thing? This intro makes you look like a racist, so that might be why he's not indulging you too much. You can always outsource your kink but don't be surprised if he's looking around too. Asking is not wrong, refusing to take no for an answer, bullying and pressuring is wrong. I do like that you tried to trade. You might offer something that he is interested in that would be difficult for you..
Blumkins are mostly spoken about by men who love blowjobs and bums and have the consideration of a kindergartner.
Seriously, do you just not know that gay men exist? That seems hard to believe. Do you also just know nothing about men other than that most of them like women?
You know absolutely fucking nothing and part of the reason for that is because you presume to know everything without ever asking anyone who would know.
"I'm a white person, but a cop was rude to me once, so I understand everything there is to know about being black, so all black people should shut up forever" is what you're claiming.
Stop claiming it. It's offensive, and incredibly stupid.
Especially when you relentlessly advocate for people being allowed to rape us with no consequences, shitstain.
"Be a human, not a lizard."
PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.
"It's not a sexy look, on any gender."
Seriously: Stop for one second and think about the fact that you're mindlessly regurgitating all the bullshit that everyone said about early feminists; "they're only feminists because they're ugly." It was wrong then. It's still wrong. You have no excuse not to know this.
...yes, those are the lies you like to tell about the shat-on underclass to justify shitting on them. I'm not sure why you think lying about someone is evidence?
The things Rush Limbaugh said about feminists in the 90s are not actually evidence of What Feminists Are Really Like.
I'm pretty sure you're not so stupid that you could actually be saying any of this in good faith.
In case you ever pay the slightest attention to reality: I don't know any MRAs who aren't both women and outspoken feminists, even though some of them have been ostracized from internet feminism for the sin of displaying compassion for rape survivors.
In case you're wondering why the word "feminist" picked up all that baggage? It's the rape apology, stupid.
"Well, I believe in all four of your points as well (abolition, rather than equal opportunity to be conscripted to serve one's country, in the case of Point 1), so I guess that makes me a lower-case men's rights activist, or more accurately, a people's rights activist."
No, they actually believe it. Given your brutal, no-holds-barred opposition to letting men have the right to not be fucking raped, it's extremely obvious that you don't believe much of anything, bigot.
*** *** ***
Interesting to see how meanings and identities move. When I first heard of MRAs (in the 80s? 90s?) they were very angry men, with a tone much like Eudaemonic’s, uniting to protest that judges had awarded custody to their exes. They marshaled facts: women almost always got custody of the kids and fathers were being slighted. Feminists responded mildly: men almost always get custody when they ask for it. Most men don’t ask for it.
So back then we read a little story into this: MRAs were the exceptional men who requested custody but didn’t get it. It’s possible the judge noticed their seething rage, decided they were a little unhinged, and thought children should not be left alone with them. They promoted themselves as being devoted fathers whose children had been unfairly taken from them for no other reason than sexist discrimination, but that was a smokescreen.
Feminists have been very much in favour of shared custody and the best interests of the child. The history of child custody awards has not been feminists on one side screeching “Women must get full custody all the time!” and MRAs on the other protesting that fathers love their children too.
Feminists note the labour and opportunity costs associated with childcare, insist that they be valued, and deny that they are necessarily the entire responsibility of the nearest person with breasts. Entirely consistent with shared custody and changing tables in men’s rooms.
If MRAs today are claiming that they are the ones who came up with the idea of changing tables in men’s rooms — and that they had to fight feminists to get them — then it looks to me like there are a bunch of people throwing words and labels around who have no knowledge of history and all they ‘know’ about second wave feminism is that they hated trans* people. (I imagine it looks to the kids today as though I know nothing about 21st century feminism and gender politics and they’d be right.)
Previously divorce required someone to be unfaithful or abusive or abandon the family; infidelity would have to be proven in court, with witnesses. Full custody of the children would then be awarded to the wronged party. In this setup, men would pay alimony and child support only if their ex wives were innocent. If their ex wives were sluts or self-actualizing and independent, men kept the kids and didn’t have to make payouts.
Feminists fought for, and got, no–fault divorce. Either party or both could decide that they were done with the marriage and go to the court for help disentangling assets. There were men who now found themselves paying alimony and child support to women who had walked out on them, which they felt was terribly unfair. They framed this unfairness as The Downtrodden Underclass of Straight Men vs Thieving Feminists. In fact, as women have grown up expecting and equipped to earn their own livings (feminism!), exes have found themselves sharing custody (feminism!); alimony (as opposed to child support) is much less of a factor (feminism!); and it can go either way (you don’t need a penis to be dinged with child support payments) (feminism!).
So yeah, men started noticing the problems and inequities once feminists started dismantling the structures that maintained them. But the perceived unfairness faded significantly once the dismantling got underway. MRAs complaining about paying alimony to unchaste exes who had no reason to leave had nothing to do with it.
So if today’s MRAs want credit for social change, I’m skeptical. Convince me.
ION, I stand collectively corrected on my misuse of the term "MRA." Can the board let me know what the preferred term is -- XiaoGui said "manosphere," maybe? -- that encompasses both PUAs and men who also believe hetero dating is a "game" that they've already "lost" and that women therefore deserve hate?
Because feminists have been fighting discrimination much longer than MRAs have, it's unsurprising that they've achieved more. Women can wear trousers and combat boots and study the sciences and no one bats an eye. Men, on the other hand, can't wear skirts or makeup or go into hairdressing without their manhood being questioned. But women aren't to blame for this. Perhaps if men had taken up the mantle of equality earlier, masculinity would have experienced as radical a redefinition over the past 40 years as femininity has. It's an ongoing process, which isn't helped by us making enemies of each other.
American feminists have been praising the swedish model of shared parental leave as long as I can remember. We have something a lot like it in Canada.
One of the reasons US women are so much more likely to be paying massive opportunity costs to dedicate themselves to raising children is that the US is so stingy with parental leave of any kind, including maternity leave. (If you have to go back to work full time within two weeks of giving birth, it had better be a damn good job.) This isn’t an MRA demand. It’s a feminist one.
On the other hand, they still mostly address women as either Miss or Mrs. Argh!
I really wish I had just resisted the temptation. Ignorance is bliss.
I try to keep myself fairly well versed on both feminist and anti-feminist rhetoric mainly out of a desire to avoid being collateral damage in the gendre wars. Of late the sites more feminist than here I've been known to frequent have been in decline, but I'm sure Ms Cute can recall my instancing such places. These days, I mainly listen to Youtube videos on both sides of the gendre conflict while I slog through my interminable paperwork; agreement or disagreement isn't largely the point.
A possible S-Y confrontation would likely contain delights peculiarly suited to gay sensibilities; it would be charming if each managed to incite the other into speaking brilliantly.
I hope I have treated this cross-examination in the appropriate spirit.
And there was that book Iron John, which I never read. It didn't take hold, like women only discussions did.
I feel for your friend. That's criminal, that his children have missed out on seeing their dad. And he has missed out on them. Let's hope as they reach maturity, they will seek him out.
I have some life-long gay male friends I think are fabulous. They think I'm pretty okay too. I am also aware that there are some gay men and lesbians who avoid the opposite gender, but I'm not one of them, and I don't associate with any. It hurts me that the gender wars which are somewhat understandable in the OS universe would also pollute us SSers. I'm sure there are hateful women on the internet spouting equally hateful things about men that Y spouts about women, but I have so many better things to do with my life than listen to them.
I don't like it when hateful ideologues with powerful voices use hate and fear of "the other" to manipulate and inspire their audiences. I watched Rush Limbaugh do that to my father, turning him into a hateful and spiteful person. The transformation was alarming.
I learned the hard way that listening to those people is dangerous and damages the soul.
I fear there is no cure...
My ex, a feminist with strong mother/parent instincts, was quite supportive of me being a stay home dad for couple of years.
In one of my outings with the kids I had to change one of them while in the local branch of a national retailer. With no changing tables in men's rooms anywhere back then I went into the management section and complained. The guy I talked to apologized and offered his desk as a changing table.
Luckily for humanity it was a fairly big and a very fragrant load. That company installed changing tables in men's rooms shortly after, and they were far ahead of the curve.
------------------
* I'll be here cowering in the corner waiting for the inevitable "Lying rapist LIAR! You know damn well I never took a shovel to any woman's head! Lying Liar"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27…
And where women
win
there are usually
much better
chances
for all
of those
in
between
*****
Mx Wanna - Good on your ex. I've heard vague reports that women breadwinners tend to lose attraction to SAHH/Ds even when it was the women's own idea, but haven't looked into the details.
I'm a middle-aged woman and I was unaware of that myself. And, for the record, I haven't had split ends since I was a teenager.