(May 15, 2013 at 9:55 am)Faith No More Wrote: Men can pee over walls with the greatest of ease.

And women can pee without missing the toilet with the greatest of ease.

(May 15, 2013 at 8:47 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(May 14, 2013 at 8:36 pm)festive1 Wrote: I seem to remember sleep deprivation effecting both my husband and I when our boys were newborns and woke every 4 hours to eat...

Shit, festive, you got off easy. My son never slept for more than two hours at a time for the first six months of his life. My wife and I were in a perpetual zombified state.

I hear that. I know people whose first child was colicky, I don't know how they summoned up the courage to have more kids. We lucked out, both of our boys were easy babies, though the youngest only wanted to be held by mom for his first three months (Grammy worked as a substitute for a while, until he figured out her boobs didn't work).

Is it possible, Mystic, that rather than there being some entrenched and profound difference between men and women along these lines your opinions may have been influenced by backlash from your muslim upbringing? Essentially the pendulum built momentum in swinging away and now you find yourself at the other end of the spectrum?

I appreciate your experience, but it's also possible that someone else may have plenty of experience with domineering, boot-to-the-neck females, don't you think? Is this, very accurately, a male/female thing - or just a general range of expression that is -human-?

Maybe. It's observation.

(May 15, 2013 at 9:58 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 9:55 am)Faith No More Wrote: Men can pee over walls with the greatest of ease.

And women can pee without missing the toilet with the greatest of ease.

I think you're confusing inability with callous indifference towards the consequences.

(May 15, 2013 at 8:27 am)mo66 Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 8:04 am)festive1 Wrote: It doesn't have to be the mother... My next door neighbor is a stay-at-home dad. His wife had the bigger paycheck.

There's no problem with that. In my religious ideology though, a wife is entitled to a portion of their husband's paycheck whereas a husband isn't entitled to any of the wife's paycheck. So if I was with a woman who earned more than me, I'd still have to give her some of my earnings despite being poorer than her but there's no problem with that.

So if my neighbors divorced, she shouldn't be obligated to pay him alimony? Even if he has difficulty re-entering the workforce due to his prolonged absence? That hardly seems fair or equitable. IMO, he should also get a portion of her work retirement fund (401k).

(May 15, 2013 at 9:58 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 9:55 am)Faith No More Wrote: Men can pee over walls with the greatest of ease.

And women can pee without missing the toilet with the greatest of ease.

So can men, they can just sit down. Whereas you'd find it pretty difficult peeing over a wall...

---

(May 15, 2013 at 10:17 am)festive1 Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 8:27 am)mo66 Wrote: There's no problem with that. In my religious ideology though, a wife is entitled to a portion of their husband's paycheck whereas a husband isn't entitled to any of the wife's paycheck. So if I was with a woman who earned more than me, I'd still have to give her some of my earnings despite being poorer than her but there's no problem with that.

So if my neighbors divorced, she shouldn't be obligated to pay him alimony? Even if he has difficulty re-entering the workforce due to his prolonged absence? That hardly seems fair or equitable. IMO, he should also get a portion of her work retirement fund (401k).

Well, if they want to come to some sort of agreement then that's fine. But the status quo in my opinion, is that it is not expected for her to provide him with any money, anything she gives him is an act of goodness and kindness, and in any loving relationship, one should expect one partner to look out for the other. But legally, I don't think he should be entitled to anything, no.

---

(May 15, 2013 at 9:58 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Yeah I think you are wrong. I think for example, if we all realized women tend to do things out of love more then ego (like us men), then we would prefer women as leaders, which would've been better for society, then us men ruling.

It's interesting you say that because there are countries that tried a woman as a leader and it hasn't worked out very well. For example, Thatcher in the UK, Golda Meir in Israel. There are many women in the UK who openly believe that women do not belong in leadership positions simply because of one bad experience, which isn't fair at all. But there's no question that women do have their limitations and so do men.

Well, legally he is entitled to alimony and a portion of her retirement plan (depending on the state, where I am, this is how it works).. A lot of marriages end badly, there's not so much goodwill about them. That's why it's a legal entitlement, not solely based on one partner's generosity. Both of them are contributing to the household, one financially, the other by taking care of the kids and home. Simply because the marriage ends, shouldn't mean one partner can be unceremoniously thrown out on their ass.

The institution of leadership is dominated by men. Women who want to take part of it, tend to try to imitate men.

You get bitches like Condoleeza Rice and Hilary Clinton as a result.

I want to see the whole institution changed. Why? Because it should really be that of teaching society and inspiring society to follow what is right and best. Not leading alpha male trust me leadership.

(May 15, 2013 at 10:58 am)festive1 Wrote: Well, legally he is entitled to alimony and a portion of her retirement plan (depending on the state, where I am, this is how it works).. A lot of marriages end badly, there's not so much goodwill about them. That's why it's a legal entitlement, not solely based on one partner's generosity. Both of them are contributing to the household, one financially, the other by taking care of the kids and home. Simply because the marriage ends, shouldn't mean one partner can be unceremoniously thrown out on their ass.

Less and less people are actually marrying in the UK, so the less wealthy partner (usually the female) is literally thrown out on their ass after a 10 year relationship with no money, no house, nothing. I guess they deserve it for not marrying anyway. It's sinful behaviour. Edit: About being generous to the partner, I didn't mean in divorce, I meant in regular payment.

---

(May 15, 2013 at 11:02 am)MysticKnight Wrote: The institution of leadership is dominated by men. Women who want to take part of it, tend to try to imitate men.

You get bitches like Condoleeza Rice and Hilary Clinton as a result.

I want to see the whole institution changed. Why? Because it should really be that of teaching society and inspiring society to follow what is right and best. Not leading alpha male trust me leadership.

I actually agree with you there. But don't you think men are more assertive and dominant and therefore likely to get things done with more efficiency?