I believe TS is about empowering women moreso than male-bashing. I could be wrong, but that's what I see from my viewpoint...<p>I agree that it IS taught that men should be the providers. But I disagree with that wholeheartedly. We should never be looking to another human being to meet all our needs. It's just not possible!<p>Because when we discover that our mate cannot meet our needs then what? Especially those needs that have to do with self-worth!!!??? That's where the rubber meets the road. You have to have two whole people to make one whole marriage with a 200% joint commitment.

I mean, come on now guys, if we're only giving 50%, then where is the OTHER 50% going?!!

Good guy,<p>"or to expand my accusation to saying that all women are materialistic pigs who simply marry a guy to have some kids, and then divorce him knowing full well that they will get the custody of the children, half of his income/possessions, etc."<p>...and I would agree with you. Plenty are, mostly because they don't have either the inclination or the confidence to make their own money. I've met men who have had this done to them. When a woman is confidant in her ability to provide for herself, she has no need to be a parasite on a man or trap him into giving her a big chunk of change. <p>A couple of my friends who are stay-at-home moms told me that I need to marry a doctor or a lawyer--cause they have such a great life. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] The implication being that the way to financial security is through the labor of someone OTHER than themselves. That makes me ill. <p>Besides, is it going to kill a guy to do more housework/childcare? Should a divorce happen, it will be more difficult for the woman to get primary custody (over joint custody) if he can show he was an equal participant in raising them. Now wouldn't THAT be nice?!

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by TheStudent:
<strong>
Besides, is it going to kill a guy to do more housework/childcare? Should a divorce happen, it will be more difficult for the woman to get primary custody (over joint custody) if he can show he was an equal participant in raising them. Now wouldn't THAT be nice?!</strong><hr></blockquote><p>Well, I dunno if I would call it "nice", I think divorce sucks in any case, but I will agree that it is "nicer" than the alternative of losing half your possessions AND your kids. Frankly, what you described above is exactly what helped me get 50/50 custody of my children, so yes, having been an involved father definitely helped me not get screwed in the divorce, even though my ex for some reason thought that she should get the kids because she "is the mom". She was quite baffled when I explained to her that she may be the mom, but I "am the dad". But let's face it, I am an anomaly in this sense; most fathers are so focused on being the provider that when they get blindsided by an "unhappy" wife who is on her way out the door with a new guy lined up, the father has no chance at custody. <p>You know, I actually agree with you in more ways than you think. I think that it is unfortunate that so many women stay at home while the man becomes the breadwinner, only to be without a career if/when a divorce occurs. BTDT seems to be one such example, and of course there are many others. What I DON'T agree with is your assertion that somehow this situation is caused by controlling male pigs, and that the women are the victims of this. Women have the choice to have careers (you and my ex are perfect examples), and when they make the choice to stay at home, it is in fact their choice, not some control by men. I believe that if anything, the "stay at home mom" is mostly a joint decision between the husband and the wife, not something that is forced upon the wife. In fact, in my case, my ex wanted me to become the stay at home dad, which is something I considered but fortunately declined. <p>I am frankly somewhat shocked at the number of divorced women I met recently who have the same story in common: they have full custody of the kids, they live in what used to be the family home, they get child and spousal support, and they are looking for a man to marry to take care of them so they wouldn't have to work. That to me is pretty depressing.<p>I think if you read these forums, you'll see lots of examples of men like myself, who shared in all aspects of child rearing and household duties, as well as being providers. In many of these cases, they were still the victims of their wives cheating on them, leaving them, and wanting (and sometimes obtaining) full custody of the kids. And yet, you won't find these men involved in women bashing on these boards. Something to think about.<p>AGG<p>[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: AGoodGuy ]</p>

TS,<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr><p>"Women seem to have the inherent ability to adapt to men."<p>Naah. It's taught, and from a very young age. Women are raised to base their self-esteem on the needs and
accomplishments of their significant other much more than their own...and woe to the woman who doesn't!!
<hr></blockquote><p>You know this discussion is interesting but isn't supported by facts. I realize that as
someone in their mid 30's you were raised with the false facts that boys and girls are just
the same. Give boys dolls and girls guns and you couldn't tell them apart. Well, that
falsehood has been proven to be completely false. So your response above to it being taught
suggests you have not been doing your reading. Girls and boys are very different in how they
socialize from a very early age. And quite frankly, the "woman can do anything a man can do"
stuff is just a falacious. Women make lousy imiations of men. I have always applauded you
continuing your education and moving toward your goals. But, as someone who has and does
work constantly with female PhD's, I will tell you that the most successful ones are the
ones that realize that they are not males and rather than imitate men's social behavior they
utilize the advantages they have as females. They are WOMEN who have PhD's not women acting
like MEN who have PhDs. Some of them have children and some have chosen not to have
children. <p>But, let me tell you even in these women there is a difference in how they deal with people
and how they react to things. And most will tell you they were brought up in mainly male
ways by their fathers who themselves were engineers and scientists. <p>Finally, men have to adapt to women. Very few men have much say around the house or even
things like sexual frequency. But, interestingly the sexual frequency seems always to be
driven by the one with the lowest drive. Sometimes that is the man, but most often the
woman. Is that fair?? That men have a often have a higher drive? I know you realize that
fair has little to do with it. It is why we are designed. And that is my point, design,
functionality plays a bigger role than the current PC climate wants to admit.
Adapting is really a two way street, especially in successful marriages.<p>
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>"Their wives have become spoiled, take their efforts for granted and have unrealistic expectations." <p>yea, I guess it is an unrealistic expectation that some women insist that a man do HALF without thinking he
deserves a big lollipop for his "trouble". On the other hand, I don't have alot of nice things to say about women
who don't work and have the nerve to pressure their husbands to make more money. They can afford to get off
their backside too or put themselves on a budget. <hr></blockquote><p>Interesting statement, since many women come here complaining that their H doesn't "appreciate"
all they do at home. Indeed, they are expecting that "lollipop" that you seem to think
only men want for doing the house work. So let me ask you this TS, in your version of the
universe, if a woman stays home, and the children are in school, and the man works the usual
8-10 hour days why is splitting the house work 50/50 fair in your accounting system??<p>It is clear you haven't figured out that mathematics is a an artform and has little basis for
for many systems. If you ever had children you would quickly learn that 1+1 is NOT 2.
Some days it is 1.5, some days it is like 4, other days it is like 1. You would learn that
50% of what you have is not 50% of what someone else has. So the concept of "fair" or "balanced"
is not valid. Even in nature there is no balance, no equilibirum, there is constant
change and evolution. Sometimes fast and sometimes slow.<p>It is my opinion in a marriage, two people should consider marriage if their philosophies and goals
in life are complementary. If their ideas of marriage and who does what are in agreement. If
their ideas of child rearing are consistant. If their strengths and weakness complement one
another. If these aren't true, marriage proves to be a very difficult thing.<p>A women bent on a career should probably not marry a man bent on a career and then expect to
have children, unless they both agree that a nanny is the person best suited to raise such
off spring. Where I live this arrangement is fairly common. It is sad for the children, but
they do enjoy driving brandnew Beemers to HS. [img]images/icons/frown.gif" border="0[/img] It all comes down to matching up.<p>But, frankly TS your jealousy of men is not becoming and your rather warped view of the roles
of each and how they are chosen is clearly not correct. But, you are right, marriage does
involve compromise, some sacrifice (Although Harley believes that sacrifice kills many marriages.)
Hence the POJA. Heck, I would hazzard a guess and say that sacrifice killed your second marriage.<p>I think what annoys me is your sweeping generalizations and constant focus on "men have it
easy and take advantage of women". Yet, you clearly thought the story about the women in the
luxury car is fine, if she can pull it off. Sort makes you sound like there is gender war,
and you want to lead it as long as you get what men have. Your profession was invented by men,
developed by men, and used by men to do "their jobs". In this modern time, you have the
benefit of this, and yes are even being paid to learn this field. I find it interesting that
you then complain that it is male dominated. Let's not forget NO ONE is ever invited to
invent or create. The truely innovative people do it at great peril to their careers and
in the times past peril to their lives.<p>So all of those guys who should have been doing the dishes by your estimation were in fact
doing something that you are now benefiting from, indeed all of society benefits from. Was it
a good trade off??? You tell me. But, I do know this, the world is not as black and white as
you seem to make it.<p>But, you are right about one thing, marriage is about people gaining something from the
institution. If both parties don't gain, then the marriage is very likely going to fail.
I guess in your world, marriages would be business mergers. The prospective couple looking
at the others balance sheet, and then everything else is simply split. I am much older than
you, as you know, but I will tell you that if my W's main role was simply to be my business
partner I would have accepted her as such, but I would have never married her. I was fully
capable of taking care of myself before we met, and since. I wanted a person that brought
not only love into my life, but parts I was missing and yes, perhaps children. A woman's wealth or lack
of it was and is of not interest to me.<p>Now perhaps you are arguing that a man's wealth or lack of it should be of no interest to a
woman. That women will work full time, have children, and then they will get a good day care
center to raise the children. The man will find whatever work they can, and maybe help support the
family and maybe not. But, all things at home will be 50/50. That is your ulitmate goal
for the genders, perfect equality, men and women just the same. Well, all I can say is have
at it. I personally don't think it will work or some very very basic things are going to have
to be changed in the human mind. My guess that it will happen when babies are conceived and
go through gestation in a lab rather than a womb. <p>TS, lose the anger. There are many elements of what you say that I agree with, but I just
cannot agree or even ignore your sweeping generalizations. <p>I will close this by offering you a brief glimpse into my thinking about daughters.
Yup, I have one. Scary isn't TS? [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] My daughter is in college, she is a serious athlete,
played 4 sports in HS, and is now doing two in college. She is also majoring in a science.
Why is she in college? Because she wants to be and her mother and I wouldn't accept her
doing anything else. Why? Well, 50-100 years ago a woman may not have needed an education,
after all she would marry and her H would take care of her financially and she would
take care of the children if they had any. I am sure this is setting your teeth on edge,
right TS?? But, in the more recent times marriages are much less permenant, divorce is high
and I as a father would be remiss in my obligations to my daughter if I didn't push her
toward self sufficiency. You see for me and I think my W it is about providing the best
chance for our children to survive and prosper. I don't necessarily yearn for the old
days, but I do deal with today. So my daughter goes to college, my boys all know how to cook
courtesy of Boy Scouts, a foods course in HS which we made them all take, and the fact
that for Mothers Day the kids do all of the cooking. [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>TS, the point of all of this is really simple. People make decisions that are in the best
interest of themselves, their families, and their children. As the world changes, the
decisions change and they will continue to. Your anger and narrow view of things completely
ignores this very basic fact. It is not a grand conspiracy that things are the way they are.
It is about efficiency, division of labor, and the time it takes for things to change. But,
change they will. Just don't get so wrapped around the axial over it.<p>God Bless,<p>JL

JL - Amen!!!<p>
TS - JL does raise an interesting point. You seem to have the attitude that men don't have to juggle between career and their personal lives. I have news for you - men have ALWAYS had to juggle between work and home. What's new in this equation is the fact that women are having to come to terms with this basic fact of life for the first time in modern history. Like all individuals, some deal with this new responsibility gracefully, and some don't. This is true regardless of gender.<p>There is also a very basic reason men are more reluctant than women to leave a marriage. It has nothing to do with comfort, and everything to do with the modern legal system. The fact of the matter is that it is the MAN who stands to leave the marriage with the bootprint of the family court system on his [censored], NOT the woman. If you are truly as interested in statistics as you seem to be when it suits your puposes, do some research into how many men fight for and lose custody of their children simply because of their gender. Check into the numbers on how many women are out there paying child support. Then look me in the eye and tell me how society and marriage are geared toward the benefit of men and not women.

Having a college education is certainly no guarantee of being able to support your kids when your H leaves you for a wealthy OW and decides to never work again. In fields where there is rapid change, like high tech, I might as well have been out 25 years as the 4 I was out. <p>Where are all these women who are supposedly home eating bon-bons while there kids are in school? I sure don't know many SAHM's whose kids are all in school. When I was home with my kids, homeschooling 5 of them and raising an infant, I know for a fact that I worked harder and for longer hours than I ever did while working full-time. Going to work, at least in a white-collar job, is a piece of cake compared to raising children.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by TheStudent:
<strong>Good guy,<p>"or to expand my accusation to saying that all women are materialistic pigs who simply marry a guy to have some kids, and then divorce him knowing full well that they will get the custody of the children, half of his income/possessions, etc."<p>...and I would agree with you. Plenty are, mostly because they don't have either the inclination or the confidence to make their own money. I've met men who have had this done to them. When a woman is confidant in her ability to provide for herself, she has no need to be a parasite on a man or trap him into giving her a big chunk of change. <p>A couple of my friends who are stay-at-home moms told me that I need to marry a doctor or a lawyer--cause they have such a great life. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] The implication being that the way to financial security is through the labor of someone OTHER than themselves. That makes me ill. <p>Besides, is it going to kill a guy to do more housework/childcare? Should a divorce happen, it will be more difficult for the woman to get primary custody (over joint custody) if he can show he was an equal participant in raising them. Now wouldn't THAT be nice?!</strong><hr></blockquote><p>I agree with most of what you said except for the part that you say that some women would not be 'materialistic pigs' if they had the confidence in supporting themselves. <p>Sorry but this smacks of elitism. It's almost like saying that if a person is rich that she is better human beign than a poor person. Evil does not recognize social or economic status, and it's followers are men and women, from all racial backgrounds, and from all socioeconomic levels.<p>Money does not make a person a better human beign. But a real education that builds hope for a better life ,without resorting to hurting others in the process, does<p>Joe

Nellie,<p>If having children and raising them is such drudgery for you, and you receive no satisfaction for having raised them, then why on Earth did you have them??? I am constantly puzzled by women that do nothing but complain about child rearing, home schooling (a choice), and all and then go to court and swear that they cannot possibly live without their children.<p>Which is it Nellie? Would you have them again if you had the chance of a do over? In this day of woman having the right to choose, you had choices and you made them. <p>You know one of the reasons I came here was that I wasn't sure about many things in my marriage. In the following years I have learned one thing. I made a far better choice than I realized. My W may or may not be many things, but she never complains about the children and what it takes to raise them. She is a SAHM, she wanted the children, she wanted to stay home (although she works parttime for me), and she doesn't seem to have ever regretted those choices.<p>I guess I am a very lucky man to have married a woman that knew what she wanted and didn't complain when she got it.<p>I learn something new here everyday. Thank you Nellie for the lesson, I deeply appreciate it.<p>God Bless,<p>JL

Wow JL, your on a roll. Just wanted to tell you that I agree with everything you posted 100%

Just Learning,<p>What did I say from which you could possibly infer that I thought raising children or homeschooling was drudgery or that I achieved no satisfaction from doing so? I enjoyed being a SAHM and I loved homeschooling, and would be doing so right now if I could afford to. Raising children is enormously satisfying. I just said that raising children involves a lot of hard work and long hours - far more so than any job I have ever held. Do you claim that you work harder at your job than your wife did while raising preschoolers? <p>I love my kids with all my heart, but I do feel guilty about having brought them into a world where they would be emotionally abandoned by their father, a man who they (and I) believed loved them deeply - if it had been genetically possible, I guess what I would have preferred would have been to have had these particular children, but without ever having them know and grow attached to the man who would turn away from them. All of them thought that he loved them, and were devastated by the fact that he no longer cares enough about them to spend more than a few hours a month with them, or that he never calls them. He once told a prospective employer that the most important feature of a job would be flexibility, because spending time with his family was so important to him. For all but the last few months he was home, he was responsible, but never a work-a-holic. His family always came before his job. Now he has been unemployed for two years, pays little child support, rarely goes to any of the kids' functions, and has gone as long as 8 weeks or more without allowing them to visit him, even when they begged him. I think it would have been far better for them to have never had a father than to have had a father who stopped acting like he loved them.<p>[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Nellie1 ]</p>

Nellie,<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>When I was home with my kids, homeschooling 5 of them and raising an infant, I know for a fact that I worked harder and for longer hours than I ever did while working full-time. Going to work, at least in a white-collar job, is a piece of cake compared to raising children. <hr></blockquote><p>It has been my observation that when you do something you love, it isn't work.<p>It has been my observation that when you do something you get satisfaction from, it isn't a job.<p>It has been my observation that when you can do something you love and you get great satisfaction from there is little to complain about.<p>Frankly, I do work many more hours at my job than my W spends child rearing: two in college, one in HS. Frankly, she misses the other two alot, and in many ways wishes they were back home. Now, who is working harder?? The comparison is moot; to her it is not a job. <p>When I am deep into the part I really love to do in my profession, it is not a job and it really isn't work. ANYTHING she did that she considered work, would be more work than I am doing at that point.<p>Nellie, I rarely post to you because there is nothing I can say or do to change what your H has done. I cannot explain it to you and you cannot change what he has done. That is why your H is not a subject that I have or really will discuss.<p>God Bless,<p>JL

Bonnie,<p>Thank you for your kind words.<p>JL

JL,<p>My H and I and our kids spent many years farming, some of the time full-time. We derived a great deal of satisfaction from it, and, for the most part, enjoyed it - but it was absolutely, without a doubt, hard work. I don't think you would find a farmer in the world, no matter how much he loved what he was doing, who would question that statement. There is nothing negative about the words "work" or "job."<p>My question to you about childrearing hours etc actually referred to the time when you had preschoolers - I doubt if your wife put in fewer hours than you did then.

Nellie,<p>Your doubts might be challenged. When the kids were first born, I took all of the late night feedings as I could stay up and work as well. Then I went to work at 6 AM and got home around 7 PM, took a nap and was back up for the 12:00 feedings.<p>As for hours at my job, I used to work many more hours than my W was awake. And if I wasn't I help take care of the kids. Am I Dad of the year? No! My W was and is a great Mother. But, dear lady you don't seem to have a clue about what I am talking about. <p>I wouldn't argue for a moment that farming wasn't hard WORK. But, it is obvious that your H and you didn't like it much. From all of the grumbling and comparing you do about your H and by extension ALL other men, you are beginning to sound like TS.<p>Now she complains but she has never had children, but KNOWS that women get the short end of the stick ALWAYS. Isn't so, and it won't be so.<p>Sorry! You can feel martyred (sp) all you want, but that doesn't make you one.<p>THe world is far more balanced than you think, but you have to see the WHOLE world to appreaciate it. You are just comparing one aspect of it, as is TS. And there is no free lunch for anyone.<p>I will say this about your H. He is losing out on things that will never come his way again. You are not. Would you trade your children for a bunch of money?? I doubt it. BUT, if you think he has it so good and will have it so good the rest of his life, why wouldn't you trade. Your time with the kids for the money he sought with the OW.<p>As bad as you have it Nellie, you have it better than him and it is time you realized it. You have a future and a legacy, he simply has OW. It will come to get him don't worry about that.<p>There is a saying in golf that you might like. "The money gets spent but the trophy lasts forever."
He has the money, you have the trophy. You have your integrety, your children, and the prospect that as bad as things are now, things will get better for you.<p>Your H is at his peak right now. It won't get better, and probably will get worse as OW gets tired of him.<p>Some things to think about, instead of trying to figure out who worked the most. It is pretty rediculous in my mind to try and make that comparison. I work a lot harder than the pan handlers on the street but I wouldn't trade with them for anything. I was once told by a minister that I didn't understand my gifts. I said OK what don't I understand? He said you don't understand that "it is a gift to be able to work hard and focus on things." You have been blessed with this ability and when you lose it, you will know what I mean.<p>He was and is right in my way of thinking.<p>God Bless,<p>JL

It is obvious to me that discussing anything with you is pointless, since you seem to be convinced that you know what I am thinking, even when my posts say the exact opposite. It is "obvious" to you that my H and I did not like farming - that is odd; it sure wasn't obvious to my H and me. All those years we thought we did, but we must not have, since JL says we didn't.

Nellie,<p>Easy to draw that conclusion: You complain about everything. <p>However you said you and H got satisfaction from farming and my implication was not to contradict your statement. If you feel I did I apologize, it was not my intent.<p>But, frankly in all the years you have posted here I have never seen you post a positive post to anyone on any subject. I would be delighted if you can prove me wrong. I fear that you cannot be helped because you won't be helped. <p>Sorry,<p>JL

I have in fact posted "positive" posts, though who knows what your definition of that is, but I am not about to take the time to search through all of them just to prove it to you. One could comment that few, if any, of your posts deal with your emotions, a fact that I find a bit odd. After all the time you have been here, I still have virtually no clue why you came or how you are benefiting. <p>It gives me no comfort to think that my H's current life might be more miserable than mine - in fact that makes the tragedy of infidelity even worse, if that is possible. I know there are many people worse off than I - my sister's son was murdered, and it is hard to imagine anything worse than that. It doesn't make me somehow feel fortunate to realize that misery is so commonplace. <p>I am not looking for "help." The reason I still post here (aside from morbid curiosity) is the hope that I might be able to prevent someone else from being scr*** over financially or in any other way because they were unaware of the extent of the personality change that WS's can undergo, or because they believed that giving in to their WS's demands would increase the changes of reconciliation.

good guy,<p>"What I DON'T agree with is your assertion that somehow this situation is caused by controlling male pigs, and that the women are the victims of this."<p>I have NOT asserted that. Many people jump to that conclusion when I say that I will not be financially/domestically dependent on a man. They assume that a woman who wants to be self-sufficient is trying to get power "over" a man....and on and on it goes. <p>I don't believe that women are "victims" either. Any woman who chooses to be totally dependent on a man--well--has noone to blame but herself if she is left high and dry--either by divorce or death. Same thing goes for the man. If he doesn't participate in raising his children, then it should come as no surprise if his wife gets primary custody. Yes, there are predators on both sides of the "fence"...and the only person responsible for taking care of you is....you. Since divorce is so prevalent, I don't see any reason why both men and women aren't hedging their bets.<p>JL,
You and I have gone down this road before. <p>"But, in the more recent times marriages are much less permenant, divorce is high and I as a father would be remiss in my obligations to my daughter if I didn't push her toward self sufficiency."<p>Oh well, then we agree. <p>"Now she complains but she has never had children, but KNOWS that women get the short end of the stick ALWAYS. Isn't so, and it won't be so."<p>Now that is just bull. I've never said always. I do think that women who want careers AND a family have a huge mountain to climb compared to men. Part of that is the way things are set up. Part of that has to do with attitudes about what is appropriate for men and women. IMO, it is the men who are lagging behind.<p>"Heck, I would hazzard a guess and say that sacrifice killed your second marriage."<p>Nope. My ex was a great liar. I would never have married my second H if he hesitated in the slightest about my getting a graduate education. It was on the table a LONG, LONG time before we even got married. To this day, I have no idea what ever made him think I was any different than what I am. I always presented my goals and myself 100%. My only guess was that he was dishonest with himself because he did not know himself well enough to know he couldn't hack--and that he wanted someone more traditional. Or he was just lazy. He was happy to have a wife that worked because it was less work for him...he was happy in our marriage as long as he was not inconvenienced in the slightest. Hey, I know plenty of women like that too. God forbid they go out and get a job when their kids start school....<p>It was my naivete that marriage could be a partnership. I almost never see that happen when the woman is developing a career. Try as they might, alot of men have alot of mental hangups about it. The marriages that I know of that are still together are between SAHM's and working husbands. I believe they receive a great deal more social support for their way of life than the other way around. So, when my ex started dragging his feet--WANTING to break his "promise" to me and doing everything he could think of to convince me to voluntarily drop my goals (the ones we had supposedly agreed upon before we got married), well, he had tons of support by well-intentioned outsiders. People like you, JL, who think it is more "natural" for the woman to step aside and be the nurturer-blah,blah. If we had agreed that we wanted children, and he changed his mind, you better believe he wouldn't be hearing the crap he was fed. I don't remember a single person telling him...that is what you agreed on prior to marrying her. Suck it up dude.<p>You see, you like to think that marriages exist in a vacuum. That as long as the two people are compatible, then everything will work out. It is not that simple. People are influenced by many outside social forces that have nothing to do with their compatibility. <p>
Nellie,<p>"I am not looking for "help." The reason I still post here (aside from morbid curiosity) is the hope that I might be able to prevent someone else from being scr*** over financially or in any other way because they were unaware of the extent of the personality change that WS's can undergo, or because they believed that giving in to their WS's demands would increase the changes of reconciliation. <p>well, you and I share a common goal it seems. <p>toomuchcoffeeman,
I really don't understand how you came to your conclusions. It has nothing to do with how much money they make. It has everything to do with taking responsibility for one's own life and not sucking other people dry.

TS,<p>I said: "What I DON'T agree with is your assertion that somehow this situation is caused by controlling male pigs, and that the women are the victims of this."<p>You said: "I have NOT asserted that. Many people jump to that conclusion....."<p>Many people probably jump to that conclusion because they read what you said previously, such as this example (one of many):<p>TS: "Our culture expects women to sacrifice themselves for others continually to the exclusion of their own needs. Anything less than total devotion and willingness to be absolutely dependent upon a man, and she is considered selfish."<p>If this statement doesn't make women out to be the victims of men, I'm not sure what does...<p>AGG