07-25-2016, 10:35 AM
(07-25-2016, 08:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > The usual employer seeking a new hire for a non-throwaway job
> wants several competent candidates. The losers of the competition
> will often have no idea of why they came up short.
One thing that's becoming increasingly apparent, as I talk to more and
more people about this, is that most people over 40 are summarily
rejected. Age discrimination is becoming rampant. Last week I talked
to someone who works at a Catholic school, and she said that she was
lucky to get her job because the nun in charge liked older people and
liked her. But she said that no one is willing to hire anyone over 40
even in a Catholic school. In the IT field, I've spoken to people
about age discrimination in companies like Harvard Business School,
Amazon, and IBM. In California, there's a pending lawsuit against HP.
This discrimination is blatantly illegal, but it doesn't matter.
After all, Gen-Xers weren't punished for knowingly creating and
selling tens of trillions of dollars in fraudulent subprime mortgage
back securities in order to screw Boomers, so why would anyone care
about age discrimination? One interesting part of this is that it
applies to anyone over age 40, which means that Gen-Xers are screwing
each other as well as Boomers, and that's a little bit of
Schadenfreude that we Boomers can watch and enjoy.
(07-25-2016, 08:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > For all their alleged hyper-modernity, feminists still cleave to
> the idea that men must show some loyalty to their first wives. Men
> with economic advantages often end up dumping their first wives
> for younger, sexier women. Part of it is a primitive desire to
> have progeny that a forty-something wife might not be able to or
> might not want to do again. The forty-year-old wife has graying
> hair, she is losing her figure, and she may be losing her sex
> drive. Besides, a younger woman might be a fountain of youth (or
> so goes the myth). So ditch her for a younger model. Maybe a
> literal model fifteen to twenty years younger than he!
This is most emphatically not what's happening. Statistics show
that the vast majority of divorces are initiated by the wife and
opposed by the husband.
From my book: In 1994, I had lunch with three friends, all divorced
women, and they were all absolutely bubbling with excitement about a
new book, called _Flying Solo_. "The authors interviewed a lot of
single and divorced women," I was told. "The women were miserable
when they were married, but now they're perfectly happy living by
themselves or just with their kids. And if a woman wants to have sex,
she can have a date or spend the weekend with her boyfriend. But for
the rest of the week, she's much happier being on her own."
My book quotes Danielle Crittenden as saying: "The habit of viewing
marriage as a raw deal for women is now so entrenched, even among
women who don't call themselves feminists, that I've seen brides who
otherwise appear completely happy apologize to their wedding guests
for their surrender to convention, as if a part of them still feels
there is something embarrassing and weak about an intelligent and
ambitious woman consenting to marry."
About half of all marriages end in divorce, and the vast majority
of divorces are initiated by women. Here are the top five
reasons given for seeking divorce:
- Gradual growing apart, losing a sense of closeness (57%)
- Serious differences in lifestyle and/or values (54%)
- Not feeling loved or appreciated by spouse (45%)
- Spouse not able or willing to meet major needs (41%)
- Emotional problems of spouse (38%)
Beyond that, a "husband's extramarital affair (38%)" appears sixth on
the list, and "violence between you and spouse (20%)" doesn't appear
until position 16.
In interviewing divorced fathers and second wives, here's a story
that I heard frequently:
A man is a good provider and loves his family. One day he comes home
and sits down to dinner with his family, and the doorbell rings. It's
the sheriff. The father has five minutes to grab some things and
leave the home. Following feminist advice, the wife had decided to
get "personal fulfillment." Following feminist instructions, she had
gone to the police statement a file phony battering charges against
her husband, and now the sheriff was coming to get him. Nothing
he says makes any difference, because he's automatically assumed
to be completelly guilty, even with no evidence at all.
Her "personal fulfillment" means that she gets the home, the kids,
and most of his salary. His life is destroyed, he's lucky if he
lives in a trailer, and he never sees his kids.
By the way, I'm going to take this opportunity to offer a little
fatherly advice to "playwrite": I get the impression from your
postings that you think you have women all figured out. With all due
respect, that's laughable. So my advice is: Take care.
At any rate, when you say, "For all their alleged hyper-modernity,
feminists still cleave to the idea that men must show some loyalty to
their first wives," that's not the real world at all. The real world
is that half of all marriages end in divorce, that overwhelmingly the
divorce is initiated by women, and it's almost always for a trivial
reason, like "I wasn't being fulfilled," or "My mother died," or "I'm
tired of serving the needs of a man." So she gets the house, all the
money, and the kids, and she no longer has to "serve the needs of a
man." It's a good deal, and it's what "hyper-modern feminism" is all
about.
(07-25-2016, 08:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > She gets stuck with the kids and a white elephant of a house. She
> has no career, so she probably ends up working at a store or a
> restaurant for near-minimum-wage work. She finds a sex-hungry man
> and can't be choosy enough to run a criminal background check upon
> him. After all, she is likely to lose the white elephant of a
> house to taxes. She may end up with a boyfriend (perhaps
> eventually a husband) with some problems, and we know who gets
> victimized. He gets drunk or on drugs, and he gets impatient with
> children to whom he cannot bond, and he beats them. Or while she
> is hustling for tips at some low-end restaurant he rapes and
> impregnates her twelve-year-old daughter whom he has coached to
> 'dress sexy'.
You've been watching too much "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" on
TV. Or you've been listening to too many feminists.
(07-25-2016, 08:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > There's no feminist defense for child abuse, something that no
> women can accept as either traditional or feminist.
You've got to be kidding. Feminists do not care at all about
the children, and do not care at all if the mother or her
boyfriend beats the crap out of the children, or if the
boyfriend sexually abuses the children.
When the mother or her boyfriend abuse the children, typical feminist
excuses are:
- The mother didn't beat up the children at all. It was really the
father (even if the father wasn't even present).
- The father was beating up the mother, and the children were
collateral damage.
- And the all-time favorite excuse: The mother knows that the father
is going to beat up the kids, so the mother beats them up first in
order to satisfy the father, so that he won't beat them up worse. The
crap that comes out feminist mouths is amazing.
If a man is frustrated, he goes to a bar and gets into a barfight. If
a woman is frustrated, she beats the crap out of the kids. If a child
is sexually abused, it's almost NEVER the biological father; it's
almost always the mother's boyfriend or an uncle or other relative.
One thing you'll never hear from feminists is that battering and child
abuse are just as common in lesbian relationships as in hetero
relationships.
Here's another thing that I like to quote that feminists will NEVER
tell you: Feminists like to say that boys who grow up in families
where battering occurs are more likely to become batterers themselves.
What feminists don't tell you is that what the statistics really show
is that boys who grow up in families where the MOTHER is violent are
more likely to become batterers themselves. The reasons are obvious:
When a man hits a woman, a boy viscerally knows that it's wrong. But
when a boy sees his mother becoming violent with his father, he learns
that women like violence and find it erotic, especially if her parents
have sex after the mother has been violent. This is just one more
example of: Don't believe a single word of the crap that comes
from feminists.
(07-25-2016, 08:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > Social work is not a lucrative vocation.
But if you're a woman who hates men and children, it can be
a very fulfilling and satisfying vocation in the divorce field.
(07-25-2016, 08:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > Which may reflect that he has done everything possible to ensure
> that his wife become a stay-at-home mom.
A woman who is looking for "self-fulfillment," and is planning to dump
the husband to get the house, the kids, and all his money, will be
told by her feminist lawyer to quit her job so that she'll get as much
money as possible from the father. That's the way the world really
works. All this is well-documented and well-sourced in my book.
(07-25-2016, 08:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > Andrea Yates was a member of the cult Quiverfull
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
There you go - the perfect excuse. Mom may have killed the kids, but
the fault is with the men who run Quiverfull. She was just a helpless
victim.