How to spot a feminist
Some feminists can be converted!
Over on Reddit, DoktorTeufel has a problem: he likes the ladies, but he doesn’t like the feminists. Unfortunately, some ladies are also feminists! And therein lies the danger. Naturally, he turns to the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit for help.
I’m just going to come out and say it: I will never knowingly enter into a romantic relationship with a feminist. I do have some female relatives and acquaintances who are feminists … and it’s not like they all wear signs that proclaim I’M A FEMINIST. (Some do.)
Aside from obvious telltales (feminist bumper stickers, etc.) or outright asking them “Are you a feminist?”, what are some discreet ways to ferret out a woman’s views on gender activism without creating an awkward situation? Feminism is a minefield topic, and I certainly wouldn’t broach the subject directly with a woman I’ve just started dating.
Naturally, this being the Men’s Rights subreddit, he received much helpful advice. Celda broke it down for him:
You don’t really care whether she identifies as a feminist or not – you care what her views are.
For instance, does she feel women have the right to force men into parental obligations against their will?
Does she feel women are oppressed in Western society?
Does she think that women make less money than men for the same work?
If yes to these questions or similar, then you probably want to avoid her.
Exactly. Always avoid those with a basic grasp on reality. They’re the worst!
Naive1000 suggested looking for more subtle clues.
Ask their thoughts on “benevolent sexism” if they know what your talking about you likely have a feminist. Just to make sure go into male privilege, it’s the feminists’ most popular talking point. Let her talk about it then you can see what she’s really like. But, there are some women who call themselves feminists, but are really egalitarian: they just don’t know the term.
Memymineown also suggests a subtle approach, and holds out hope that some of the younger feminist girls can be won back to the path of righteousness:
Bring Men’s Rights issues into the conversation subtly. I was talking with my family about Justin Beiber and brought up the paternity charge and no rape charges filed against the woman.
That led into a discussion about how women aren’t punished for rape.
Just do things like that.
But you shouldn’t exclude all feminists. I would say that the vast majority are just girls(I do use that word on purpose) who have been lied to. Once you show them the real facts they will probably come around.
ThePigman, by contrast, urges DoktorTeufel to go for the jugular:
Why do you need to be discrete about it? Just ask her. If she is a member of the cult she will start screaming about the patriarchy, then her head will explode.
It’s true. Pretty much every conversation involving feminists quickly devolves into screaming about patriarchy. Heck, a feminist friend and I once screamed about patriarchy for five hours straight. We probably could have gone longer, but the manager at Applebee’s, evidently not a feminist, threw us out. Sometimes I start screaming about patriarchy when no one else is around, just to keep in practice.
Conversations with feminists pretty much all go like the conversation in the video below, only instead of a cat you need to picture a feminist, and instead of the word “no,” the word “patriarchy.” You can see how annoying that might get, and not just to Hitler.
Posted on January 5, 2012, in antifeminism, antifeminst women, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, misogyny, MRA, patriarchy, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 756 Comments.
Once again, NWOslave is too cowardly to actually answer the key problem with his ideology. He won’t answer because there is no answer.
@Holly Pervocracy
“activating her uterus”
Shades of the victim woman as an incubator to the oppressive abusive men.
WOOT!! Shadow takes his first successful steps into HTML!!!
No, it’s a joke about how they don’t turn off, and unless you’re seriously advocating that women never have intercourse until they’ve saved up 100K (if so, I’d love to hear you spell that out, just for our communal amusement), accidental pregnancies will happen.
How do you propose we deal with them?
Shadow
I’ve settled on the current one now. The nuclear explosion was probably a bit extreme. The laser control panel closeup was too obscure. A picture of the laser, with Zapp in the background works nicely.
The fact that my father was a better parent doesn’t mean my mom contributed less. Her contribution may have been tinged with asshole, but it cost her just the same. I benefit from her investments in me even though she was abusive.
Life is complicated like that.
And childcare=work.
I’ll say it again, in just personal federal income tax, 1 trillion a year.
That is just the “personal income tax” Much more from corporate taxes.
One trillion dollars being spent on social services equals 20 million jobs at 50K a year. No one would be un, or underemployed.
Socialism doesn’t work.
Want an extra 10K a year, Holly? Want all the unemployment problems fixed? Want all the welfare problems fixed? Want poverty fixed? Want money for “mothers” to have maternity leave?
All ya gotta do is get rid of all social services and all maternity leave in corporations and it’ll be yours.
Scare quotes around the world “mother”, NWOslave?
WHAT IF A POOR WOMAN GETS PREGNANT
WHAT SHOULD WE DO THEN
ha ha this is so unlike how numbers work it’s hilarious
Because once you get rid of all those things, children will magically stop costing money to raise. Seriously, that’s the only way that plan makes any sense.
@Holly Pervocracy
Nothing in homelife is included in paying work.
No one pays me to cook or clean.
That’s bullshit. Everyone, reguardless of having children or not works at home. Childcare is seperate. It doesn’t count. Cooking doesn’t count. Cleaning doesn’t count. Repairs don’t count.
Got it? I don’t care and no one should care that anything anyone does at home isn’t paid for. You don’t get paid for work at home.
Lets make this clear once anf for all. Nobody “wants” to work.
Home>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Work.
Even ignoring all the other reasons this is silly – why does Donald Trump still have a job? Why did Steve Jobs still have a job and not retire until he was actually at death’s door? Why do Hollywood actors still take acting jobs after the first movie they make a few million dollars off? Why do most of the members of the US Congress still have jobs? It definitely isn’t because they have to work to make “a living.”
You may hate your job. That doesn’t mean everyone hates theirs just as much. And it definitely doesn’t mean staying at home is all sunshine and lollipops.
NWO, you still seem to be operating under the basic fallacy that all money collected in taxes (or paid in maternity leave) evaporates forever.
That’s not how it works. That money still gets spent. A lot of tax money gets spent in ways that don’t benefit most people (particularly on huge defense projects and corporate welfare), so I’m not blithely pro-tax, but even then, it’s not because I think taxes = magic disappearing money.
@Holly Pervocracy
How can she be poor if there are 20 million jobs and not enough people to fill them? Extra jobs also means higher pay.
Also, seriously, dude, what happens when a non-rich woman gets pregnant?
@hyperdeath
Fair enough. A man can dream though.. a man can dream. :D
I’ve to head out to a party now so I’m out, I wish you all the best of luck in getting a straight answer out of NWO.
Abortion NWO. Your feelings on it? How do you propose people make sure that there are no pregnancies that they can’t afford?
You get the reward of food and a clean home. But if you were doing it for someone else–if you were working as a personal chef or a housekeeper, damn skippy you’d want pay.
@Polliwog
That’s right. They don’t have to work. It’s nothing but a hobby to them. A fun thing to do.
I’d just like to mention that I’d love to be working right now. Being unemployed sucks.
Further NWO, I’m actually really saddened that you don’t enjoy what you do, and that you don’t know anyone who actually finds their job fulfilling.
@Holly Pervocracy
Do tell? How much should the vicitm woman be paid to cook and clean? Would she have to cook and clean if she was alone?
C’mon, lets hear the price women demand to cook and clean?
What about the transitional period? After we’ve abolished roads and contract enforcement but before all those jobs have materialized. (Did I go over how tax money is not set on fire? That’s important to why there wouldn’t actually be 20 million jobs out of nowhere. Especially not 20 million good jobs.)
Before those jobs exist, what would you do with a pregnant poor woman? Tell her “sorry, the only way you can be rich is if you starve to death?”
@Holly Pervocracy
What’s the price to cook and clean? I’d like to know? Let’s throw in childcare as well?
What is the price tag to cook, clean and childcare?
@Holly Pervocracy
Federal taxes don’t pay for roads.
What’s the price to cook, clean and childcare?
Kyrie “zhinxy, apart from NWO crazy talk, I really don’t get the basics of libertarianism. If you don’t mind, for example, what would be your response to the problem of pregnancy in the workplace? How would it work in your libertarian utopia?”
(if you do mind I understand completely)
…
Kyrie – I started writing an answer for you, and for extra fun I’d had a couple drinks, and it’s getting really, really involved and taking me a while, so do you mind if I make it a forum answer or blog post? Making Work and Family Harmonious is probably my biggest personal libertarian/anarchist/feminist/radical/utopian drum to beat. i’ve got this thing about trying to blend the often hollow and conservative notion of the family as the building block of society with individual rights and the dismantling of patriarchy and a broad notion of family and *hic* all that. IN A FREE MARKET!
(There’s actually a thread on the forums dedicated to talkin’ bout lefty libertarianism with me, which I let fall into disuse, but am gonna start seriously spamming soon. Probably with this and some copyright stuff.)
I’ll leave you with what I got, which is either a damn fucking good start, or utterly insane ramblings. I can’t quite tell, I’m a little drunk. –
As always, apparently, when I get a good question from a non-troll, I dont really have much time to respond. I’ll just say that the short answer, or long answer starts with the crucial question –
Why is it a problem? Why is there, for so many of us as a matter of absolute necessity, “A Workplace” that sees pregnancy as an unnatural thing, and why the split between “work” and “home” and “family” and “career”. Something went wrong here. We’re being asked to cut ourselves down to fit into pre-made slots, and not very human shaped ones, certainly not very woman-shaped ones.
(But of course! work is for men! Home is for women! – OH? Since when, and why? )
People have always worked for themselves and their families. People have always worked as families. The children forced into the dark satanic mills along with their parents would have been learning their parent’s trades at their sides. Work is done, productive, heavy, work, all over the world, and always has been, with a baby happily dozing in the many baby-carrying slings humans have devised for them.
It is only when we are expected to work for others, on their terms, our children become this problem to be solved.
Quick question, even for a non-utopian world –
A baby can be nursed in the fields, a baby can sleep while his mother threshes wheat, or carries her goods to the market, in a way we still admit in our modern view that a baby can sleep by it’s mother’s feet while she hands out change at a family store, but in no way, no HOW, can a baby be allowed into even the cushiest and safest and most casual! fun! just like a family! of modern offices, without hell breaking loose, decisions to be made about career! and! family!
Why does the picture of a business woman or man rocking a baby at a desk while skimming through paperwork, even with no others about to be disturbed by all that obviously unbearable crying and shitting they do, seem so very INSANE to us? Why have we decided our children are only part of a very limited sphere, and certainly not the sphere of serious people doing serious things?
What the hell kind of workplace did we make here, even assuming “we” made it?
…
End zhinxy drunk rambling utopia-building preamble. This is what happens when you give me booze.
Frankly, I’d say market price. If you’d have to hire a cook, a housekeeper, and a nanny to keep your home otherwise, then a stay-at-home mom is worth that much.
But at a minimum women shouldn’t be penalized for supporting their families. They shouldn’t be treated exactly like people who are just plain choosing to stay home and eat the proverbial bon-bons.
@Holly Pervocracy
What’s the price to cook, clean and childcare?
@Holly Pervocracy
Federal taxes don’t pay for roads
0_0
0_0
0_0
rly?
Awesome.
Oh fuck no. Housework/sitting around the house exacerbates my depression, actually. My ideal job, as I’ve just realized today, actually, would be embalming the dead. And I’d much prefer sitting in a morgue pumping out a corpse’s blood supply than vacuuming the house.
NWO, yet again, you are an over-generalizing liar, and you’re still too dumb to use apostrophes. :)
NWO: The math isn’t simple. You can afford to have the job you do becase of those social welfare programs. Read Oliver Twist, if you want to see what a world without them actually looked like.
You won’t, but you should. Nothing, but nothing, will encourage an employer to pay more, save force. That force may be the state, it may be the workers united, it could (in theory) be a free market, where all the participants had knowledge of all that was going on.
But it takes force.
And that money you think would be better spent by the people than the state… ha!
You fly to work. The gov’t sees to it (using those taxes you despise) that the planes are safe, the pilots qualified, the flyways clear, the runways maintained.
You ride on roads, in cars, and with traffic lights, that wouldn’t function without those taxes. You are bitching about how much your life sucks on an internet created by tax dollars; and kept free (insomuch as it is) by gov’t regulation.
Your milk is unadulterated, your flour pure, and the meat not rotten… because of regulations those taxes pay for.
There aren’t bread riots because of the (inadequate) social safety net.
When you retire you will have medical care, and a stipend, because of those taxes.
You get far more value for your taxes than you can imagine. You would be far more miserable without them.
But you want to end it, so the bosses who aren’t paying you enough now, can keep a few more pennies. You would, in the theory you can do better, starve in your elder years (and consign everyone else to the same; even if you were so smart as to beat the odds as a small-time speculator).
That is how you like to like the boots that kick you; because you pretend that tax money just disappears, that it pays no salaries, buys no goods, provides no services.
NWO: A man and a woman working for 5 years would each have an extra 50K plus $4,800.00 they didn’t pay into the childcare program. That’s $109,600.00 verses the 20K. Net loss of $89,600.00 in five years.
And if she got pregnant and had to quit her job…. Net loss of 40K, in one year. Even if she only took 6 mos off, and then went back to work… 20K up in smoke.
Childcare, to pay for, costs more than 80 dollars a week, so that’s a net loss in your system. Even using your numbers anyone who has kids comes out behind.
So, all things considered, do those who don’t have kids, because the extra costs occasioned by the lack of social safety net (the crime [Faginy will come back into fashion] the lack of skilled workers for lack of education, etc.) will outweigh the costs of your,”ebil soshalizt taxesess”.
I did a (minuscule) amount of research.
Maids/nannies seem to earn about minimum wage. I think they’re sorely undervalued for the work they usually put into it.
NWO, you really think all our tax monies go to social services? Really? How do you think we paid for two wars, magic? And if you think corporations in this country pay anywhere near what the should you are delusional.
And for the last time: MATERNITY LEAVE IS USUALLY ONLY THREE MONTHS, YOU BRAYING JACKASS. ANYTHING LONGER GETS INTO FMLA OR LONG-TERM DISABILITY. READ A FUCKING BOOK. MAYBE EVEN YOUR EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK.
That’s right. They don’t have to work. It’s nothing but a hobby to them. A fun thing to do.
Okay, so you’ve correctly figured out that some people enjoy their jobs. Many of those people I listed also have children, and yet continue working at their jobs despite having the financial resources to quit their jobs and spend all day every day with their kids. See if you can figure out why they don’t do that!
(Hint: the right answer is not “everybody prefers staying home with their kids to having a job outside the home.” Because that makes no sense.)
And again, what should happen when a non-rich woman gets pregnant?
@Pecunium
That’s what they said about social security.
I’ve read that if you broke down all the jobs stay-at-home moms do (cleaning, childcare, cooking, chauffering, laundry, etc) it would run you about 100K a year.
BEAT HER IN THE STREET.
@hellkell
Perhaps you don’t know how the government works. The Federal govenment borrows money at interest to finance what it wants. That debt is passed off to you, The Federal governments only source of income is your labor.
NWO, is abortion OK in your scenario? You don’t seem to have any answers about what should be done with kids, wanted or not.
If you say everyone wants kids, I will explode.
NWO: Federal taxes don’t pay for roads.
Oh yes they do. They pay for the Interstate Highway System. Trivia question, why is the drinking age the same from one end of the country to the other?
Because in 1982 Ronald Reagan made federal highway funds contingent on states raising the drinking age. If a state allowed anyone younger than 21 to drink… that state had to pay for the maintenance of the Interstate Highways inside it’s borders out of state taxes, not federal funding.
But thank you for playing dearie, here’s a lovely parting gift for you.
Citation needed on that borrowing money for roads, buttmunch.
You won’t, but you should. Nothing, but nothing, will encourage an employer to pay more, save force. That force may be the state, it may be the workers united, it could (in theory) be a free market, where all the participants had knowledge of all that was going on.
…
While I am very seriously happy to leave you unmolested to drive NWO to seizure, why should a free market require perfect knowledge? Not in a “let’s debate this” sense, since I’m not trying to win you over or express my disagreement but because I really wanna understand your take?
If it’s not a short answer, just ignore.
NWO – I don’t precisely agree with pecunium, but he is speaking the language of rational humans, whereas you are speaking the language of AREAPAIOJ ANMKLERRARAAAARGHYRARG FREE MARKET! OR SOMETHING! WELFARE BAD ARGLEDYFARGLE.
So he may not be exactly “right” but… Yeah, when talking to you, he wins. You’re not even wrong.
NWO, darling (do you still have three coats by the way? Not down to at least two yet?): What’s the price to cook, clean and childcare?
Market price. Nanny, about 400 a week, living out. Living in is about 300.
Cook… going rate for a private cook is about 150 a night, plus materials. Cleaning… daily maid, again, about 400 a week.
So, just clean cook and childcare, the working parent is getting about 250 dollars a day worth of stuff, at the going rate.
Call it 1,700 a month. Which is all of 21,000 a year.
And the problem with social security is that there’s not enough funding for it.
With no social security, no Medicare, and no pensions, old people don’t just magically get rich because they’re free of government regulation. They in fact get very very very poor.
The only question I have left about you is if you want all the non-rich people (including yourself…) to starve, or if you’re actually that deep in denial about what happens when you take away all safety nets while changing nothing else about society.
@hellkell
Yes I’ve heard that stat as well. Taking away childcare it is something along the lines of 60K a year. I’ve never topped that mark out in the paying world. It’s nice to know I make 60K in my home.
I’m not really sure if any but the most affluent man would be able to pay a woman 60 to 100K a year for services rendered.
I mean if I have to pay her 100K a year if we had a child and I only make 50K a year. I’m already in the hole 50K which excludes expenses to just live.
Even without children she’d cost me 60K a year. I can’t see myself ever being able to afford a woman.
@Holly Pervocracy
In adjusted dollars for inflation, since I’ve already worked 30 years. I would have around an extra 350K with all those taxes back.
Lets see. Barely enough to sustain myself on social security, or an extra 5 or 600K by the time I retire. Well that’s a toughie! I’ll take the 600K. I’m just silly that way.
Do you think housekeepers and chefs should work for free if they get room and board?
—
I’m so confused, NWO. Do you think women should be stay-at-home moms for free, or do you think it’s inexcusable mooching for women to be stay-at-home moms at all?
Dammit, be one kind of ridiculous at a time.
. It’s nice to know I make 60K in my home.
…
You should have more value than that in your home, you idiot. Not the physical structure, but in your bargaining power. And you don’t get that by happily slaving away for the payers, and blaming your fellows.
You make about as much sense to me drunk as sober, btw. *hic*
zhinxy: While I am very seriously happy to leave you unmolested to drive NWO to seizure, why should a free market require perfect knowledge? Not in a “let’s debate this” sense, since I’m not trying to win you over or express my disagreement but because I really wanna understand your take?
Because if I, as a party to a transaction, can conceal things, I have advantage; what Adam Smith would have called, “a thumb on the scale”.
Take wages… if I, as an employer, go to the other businessmen in my line of work and collude with them to depress wages, the worker has no way to deal with it.
If I know that the train will be delayed (perhaps because I have paid the railroad to do so), I can make it so the farmer can’t get his goods to market in time to make the best price, and take advantage of him.
A free market requires openness. Will I have that perfect knowledge? No. But it’s possible to have enough. Getting enough, imo, requires a gov’t to be present to establish the requisite, “force”. I don’t think we have enough of it (and Obama’s use of recess appointment earlier this week pleased me greatly), but I don’t see a way to enforce the needed level of transparency without gov’t.
Seriously, NWO. Stop trying to math. It’s not working.
And here is where we hit the “your numbers were imaginary in the first place” wall.
You have no reasoning to suggest that we’ll all be making megamoney in the Glorious Future. (Except for your “government money is all set on fire, so all that money will go to the people instead!” logic, which people have repeatedly addressed.)
Losing taxes means we lose all the jobs taxes create and all the infrastructure for business that’s paid for with tax money. Whether other government systems can make up for that or not is debateable, but it’s not as simple as “I pay 10K in taxes, so without taxes I’ll be 10K richer, Q. E. D.”
(Also I have a sneaking suspicion that you’re counting your tax withholdings as taxes, but I’m not your accountant so I won’t get into that…)
Ah, I see now. Gracias – I think there’s a lot of very good anarchist literature on info distribution and open-source regulatory models that’s developing in this area, and I note that PERSONAL HERO Kevin Carson is working on a book called “The Desktop Regulatory State” that promises to break down and lay out a lot of the best work. Basically, with current technology, and emerging technology, it becomes much, much easier for us to cloudsource that knowledge, if that makes any sense?
So the need for a state, if any, to surmount that problem may fade, if not disappear, if it already hasn’t, by the ability to compile a lot of imperfect knowledge.
*hic*
@Pecunium
Your math sucks.
Cook $150.00 a day x 7 = $1050.00 a week
Cleaning $400.00 a week.
I don’t have kids so it’ll be $1450.00 a week
$1450 x 52 = $75,400.00 a year.
I’d of course have to supply the food for the cooking.
I just can’t see myself being able to afford a woman. Would sex be included in this price? I could possibly afford a woman 1 week a year, but only if sex was included in her price.
So even though I only made around 50K last year I really made $125,400.00 since I do all these things for myself.
So what are you saying here? That women should do all this for free? Just because they’re women and they were born to the task?
I know you’re allergic to saying what you actually believe (always the mark of a brave, strong intellectual hero), but without you spelling that out, it’s confusing.
Would you be generous enough to include room and board, or does she have to pay rent too?
@Holly Pervocracy
The government only creates debt.
Under the original constitution it didn’t create debt for the people. Under the “new constitution” it does.
Please refer to our founding fathers for clarification.
I’ll say this for DKM: his plans may be atrocious, but at least he lays them out. He puts that “Houses of Entertainment” shit right on the table.
NWO just sulks and simpers about how you wouldn’t appreciate his Houses of Entertainment anyway so why does he even bother (yet he keeps bothering).
oh dear
Yes, the government is in debt; yes, this is bad; no, this does not mean that tax money disappears. The government spends and a lot of that spending (not enough, but a lot) does directly benefit citizens.
So…NWO doesn’t understand history, economics, science, English punctuation, debate, or math, and he has no reading comprehension.
What’s left?
Slavey’s underlying assumption seems to be that women should provide men with services for free, just because.
This is rather ironic given his chosen screename.
So even though I only made around 50K last year I really made $125,400.00 since I do all these things for myself.
…
The sad thing is that you’re starting to “get it”, dumb-nuts. You have value. Value that you should be able to use to thumb the nose at your employers, say FUCK IT, and be able to use to support yourself. And that inherent value, that ability to not have to go bowing and scraping for your bread and board and booze, should be pressure that you should be able to bear with the force of a fucking anvil on people looking to hire.
But, you know, blame the welfare.
NWO: Lets see. Barely enough to sustain myself on social security, or an extra 5 or 600K by the time I retire. Well that’s a toughie! I’ll take the 600K. I’m just silly that way.
But… history tells us that didn’t happen. Where were all the people living comfortable retirements in the past? Or do you think people were stripped of their easy elder years to a life of penurious penny pinching once Social Security came to be.
That same Social Security Eisenhower said no one in their right minds would dream of taking away. The social security that, because it relieved people of the need to support their elder parents, they were able to send their kids to school. The world today is as prosperous as it is because of the social safety net you deny provides you all the services I mentioned before, and more besides.
MUSIC THEORY! OMG! THIS IS AN UNEXPLORED REALM OF POTENTIAL RICHES!
How do we best tap this new vein?
CassandraSays – But if women provide men with services for free, we’re still enjoying the cushy homelife and leaving men to do the dangerous jobs!
I’m not really sure what we’re supposed to do now. I guess work all day (but only at the jobs men didn’t want), pay for the kid’s private childcare, then come home and cook and clean. And as long as taxes are abolished we’ll all have enough money to make this work out just fine.
@Holly Pervocracy
I do all these things for free now. If I have a woman over and we have dinner, I clean the kitchen. If I don’t have a woman over I still eat dinner and I still clean the kitchen.
Under the feminist dictionary of how much a woman is worth for being at home doing the things I do for myself for free, I can’t afford a woman.
I’ll go with the original cheaper version of 60K a year with no kids. I’d need to pay a woman 60K. I can never afford to have a woman sleep in my home that I paid for. Tack on say 30K to pay my bills and survive I’d need 90K a year to have a woman live with me. Not gonna happen. She would be twice as wealthy as me.
If you made 90K a year would you hand over 60K of it to have a man live with you?
But Pecunium, we all know Ike was just a pawn of the military industrial complex…
I’m rather curious as to how he explains why women who already have jobs outside the home should still provide those services to their husbands free of charge, given that most women in the US are in fact employed.
Holly – And he doesn’t want taxes abolished, he admitted this. He wants THE INCOME TAX abolished, that’s it. Excise taxes, estate taxes – well, there’s a chance he’s heard THOSE are bad *ahem* , property taxes, he LOVES taxes, he just won’t let them be taken out of the paycheck he sees, directly.
(and no, NWO, I am not for the income tax, or any other tax, but again, you are not making any fucking sense)
Since I’m such an egalitarian. I’ll cook and clean for any woman here. I’ll even give sex on demand and be happy about it. I’ll always be cheerful. All it’ll take is 60K a year. Hell, I’ll even memorize feminist doctrine and sing in verse for ya. Any takers?
Cassandrasays – “I’m rather curious as to how he explains why women who already have jobs outside the home should still provide those services to their husbands free of charge, given that most women in the US are in fact employed.”
…
They wouldn’t have to work if there was no maternity leave.
No, I think that’s what he’s getting at.
Dang, maybe he does make more sense drunk than sober.
*hic*