Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You seem to overlook the women who work outside the home too then have to go home and do the lion's share of the childcare and housework. Women's lib my butt. Women work harder now than they did before. And still often don't get the same pay as their male coworkers.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not all women have the luxury of being one or the other...but wasn't this the topic of another thread yesterday?

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I read this editorial, I am reminded of this excerpt from a post I read awhile back:

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

............ Todays women can work a horribly long work week in a job that makes them miserable and constantly think suicidal thoughts just like men do. It wasn't so back in the 50s. Women weren't allowed to go to a job that made them so miserable that they had to drink themselves to sleep every single night. Nope, men hogged all those soul sucking tasks to themselves and died younger as a result. What progress we've made that men are willing to share the burden of providing for the igrates with their spouse ...........

R.
That's today's America.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof

Yea....back in the fifties a man could still go to a factory job and make enough money for the family to live on. That was before our businessmen shipped all those jobs off-shore in their endless, mindless, pursuit of more and more profit. Now most women have to work weather they want to or not at the mind-numbing, pay-even-less jobs that have been left for them by our titans of industry. Now it makes no difference if she is married or single...she still has to work. Isn't progress wonderful!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Trickle down should have been better termed "trickle out" =)

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy:
I know that some women have to work now, and I do not hold it against them. I don't believe most of them do, but they think they do for either materialistic reasons or this "societally contributing" theory. I think you forgot something in your timeline, however. Back in the sixties and seventies, this brand of feminism went on a rampage and convinced many formerly happy housewives that they weren't. Suddenly, the job market was flooded with women, competing with men for those jobs. Employers were suddenly able to get away with paying lower wages to either gender, but especially to the women. When their husbands weren't able to find jobs that covered expenses, many other women had to go find secondary income. It was a snowball in a vicious circle. Eventually, someone started shipping out the manufacturing, as you said, and it tuned into a spiral rather than just a circle. Feminism had an impact on this country's economy, and it wasn't a good one.
Despite all of this, studies have been done to see how much a second income actually brings to the checking account once the extra expenses from both people working are taken out. It turns out that most of the second income goes to pay for having a second income even in the least costly scenario (no child care, both adults split housework, etc.) The most recent video I've seen on this was done by John Stossel when he was with ABC. As I searched for the video a few minutes ago, I just learned of his career changes which will automatically discredit on these forums everything he ever said or did, so I will look for other, more neutral studies to cite.
For the record, I am employed part time outside of the home. It is for extra security rather than absolute necessity, it is completely formatted around the needs of my husband and children (I am blessed with that flexibility that isn't available to all) and it is a work that exists primarily because of all the two-income families in our country.
Also, for the record, I believe that the most important contribution I can make to society at this point is to place well-adjusted children into it and keep my husband well-adjusted while he is in it. If I didn't have them, my contribution would be different, but I do. I am "trading" what one of me could do for what potentially three of them can. With my ability to volunteer in the school and be there for many of the children who have horribly unbalanced lives and hopefully be able to help them grow and mature, the potential grows even further. I believe it is a worthwhile trade, although incredibly emotionally taxing.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm 100% behind women getting equal pay and treatment in employment. When it come to the domestic debate, I'll be more than glad to do 1/2 of "her work" at home as soon as she takes over half of my "man jobs". Oops, it's not supposed to work that way though is it?

Erbe's editorials arent worth the ink they are printed with.

Posted by chiefsfan (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof:

I hope I'm interpreting your post incorrectly. The way I interpreted, the last paragraph especially, is that if a mother works outside the home, they are not and will not place well adjusted children into the world. While I'll agree that there are some parents that will not place well adjusted children into the world, this will happen whether one parent is working outside the home or both parents are. I have always worked outside the home, and my children are very well adjusted. Neither one of them has ever robbed, stole, drank alcohol, or do drugs. They treat everyone with respect and care about their environment. Both children were and are (one is out of High School, the other is a junior) great students and scored VERY WELL on all the state standardized tests and the college admittance tests. Please don't lump all working mothers into a single group that will not "put well adjusted children into the world".

I apologize if I have misunderstood what you were trying to say in your post.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chiefsfan:
I can see where most post came across that way, but I was really attacking the notion that our priorty as women should be in "women’s advancement in society." as per the author of this article. I am attacking the idea that we have to conform to her and other feminists' concept of how we should contribute to society and that they don't acknowledge that when we prioritize our children's well-being we are, in fact, contributing greatly to society and it's advancement as a whole. The author wants women advanced (to what status, I am unsure........world domination, it would seem) and doesn't seem to notice that we mothers do just that when we do our jobs as mothers. She resents that this job may include the larger portion or even, God forbid, all of the household chores and encourages us to forsake our homes, our children and any men who may support our endeavors to do our jobs as mothers if they don't do it her way.
As for the children with the horribly unbalanced lives, those are the products of mothers who, as you said, may or may not work outside of the home, but whose priorities are any number of things that don't include their children. These range from careers/jobs to their own relationship dramas to tv shows they put ahead of the children. I have spent quite a bit of time this school year becoming the confidant of my child's schoolmates as they recognize me as an involved parent. In my time with my own children, I have come to learn the names and faces of these others and when I am simply supervising play time after school or walking my child home, they have confided huge burdens to me......because I was the only one there and listening. It has been absolutely heartbreaking to me...especially where other entities have had to be brought in to protect these unprotected kids. When I read this kind of drivel about where women should be and what our priorities should be according to this author, it hits an extremely sensitive nerve. I tried not to lump all working women together, but I apologize that I did not pull it off. The prioritization is the big issue to me...not the employment.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 3:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof

I do agree to a large degree with your time line scenario of the sixties and seventies. In fact I remember a pop culture course I took in college at that time that described all the "labor-saving" home appliances that were introduced after WWII as in reality labor transferring devices. They saved enough labor in housework to enable to homemaker to transfer their labor to the work place to pay for the labor saving devices.

In my view of the best of all possible worlds, one parent would be paid an honest living for the family weather or not it was a one or two parent household. In two parent households then the second parent would be able to stay home and parent if they wanted...these roles of course would be gender neutral in my oh so LIBERAL world.

I would however stop way short of demanding one parent to stay home...and certainly would never forbid single parent households. In some marriages the children are better off in the single parent situation than they were with two parents.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 5:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was not an any way meaning to suggest that you were calling for the elimination of single parent or dual wage earner households. Just observing that the cat is now largely out of the bag and I don't know how you would ever get him back in no matter how badly you might want to.

Posted by create (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree Oh4, especially when you say that mothers who consider themselves first and not their children are the ones responsible for unbalanced home lives. We see too much of that as any social worker can agree.

And yes, biscuit, you're absolutely right about the cat being out of the bag. That famous bag was full of holes and those cats got angry. I remember the pressures back in the early 60's about there being no college scholarships for girls since they were only expected to get married anyway. Before long we were treated as if marriage was a second choice for women who had no skills.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This situation.....as with so much of the LIBERAL/conservative argument......then in the end seems to asks us to accept one extreme or the other.

Posted by giggles (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey neigbor, I can do the "man's work" just as well as he can, the problem with your argument is that there aren't nearly as many "man chores" than there are of my "woman's chores". My husband's only chores are to take out the garbage and to empty the dishwasher, and I can't get him to do either without "nagging". He rarly remembers or offers to do them without being asked.
I am then expected to do pretty much the rest. Laundry, dishes, cleaning the bathrooms, sweeping, mopping, dusting, cooking, bills, homework, getting the children to take baths or do anything else needed. He works second shift, and he has time in the morning to himself to do something, let alone all Friday but he usually sleeps. I can either do it all or wait for hell to freeze over for him to do it. Funny the things you find out AFTER you tie the knot.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Imagine having to feed the life stock, milk the cow, pasteurize the milk and make butter, cream, and cheese. Collect eggs then wash them. Tend the garden and collect vegetables then process them for storage. Boil some water, kill chickens, and pluck the feathers. Gather fire wood for the cook stove and carry in a block of ice for the ice box. Pump water into the wash tub and put a kettle of water on the stove to heat it up for laundry that you scrub on a washboard using soap that you made last week then rinse and wring out the laundry to hang on the clothes line to dry. Sweep the floors and beat the carpets. Spin some yarn to make clothing, darn socks, sew torn jeans and replace buttons. Separate the chaff from the wheat then mill enough for the day’s bread using a mil stone. Stoke the smokehouse fire and check the meats and cheeses being cured. If you have a little time you could weave some baskets and hats to use for barter at the market next week. Sterilize several dozen jars to preserve the surplus vegetables and fruits then gather more firewood.

After we invented the electric refrigerator, washing machine, dryer, cook stove and central heating and air-conditioning life for the home keeper got a little easier. This combined with the automobile and wal-marts, the average home keeper ended up with too much time on their hands and nothing to do.

Posted by lifer (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ashley Walker has an interesting response to this specific article by Erbe. Check it out -- it's called "Depressing Thought."
She makes a good argument that homemakers deserve a little more credit.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U

Exactly.....it was the development of all these modern appliances that opened the door to what we have today. They also made it possible for the single parent household to survive. Prior to them it would not have been possible for one person to do the type of work you describe then go out and earn a living to boot.

So if you want to blame something for this blame your refrigerator, your washer and dryer, your microwave oven and your TV dinners. They made it all possible.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Giggles, sounds to me like an improved line of communication might be helpful in your case, more talking and less "nagging" perhaps. Trying to change someone is a no win situation. I'm betting he didn't do much housework before you were married either.

I'd be more than glad to do all of the house cleaning, laundry, bill writing, cooking, shopping etc so long as I would not have to do; Mowing and weedeating, misc yard work, garden rototilling-planting-weeding-harvesting-cleanup, vehicle/house maintenance and repairs(carpentry, plumbing, electrical, painting, tune ups, oil changes, tire changing etc etc),, ditch digging, chainsaw operations, fence row clearing and fence building, snow shovelling, sick animal doctoring, dead pet and visiting animal removal, bug-amphibian and reptile removal and extermination, trash hauling...........I do one or more of these things daily, especially during the summer months. I rarely have a day from away any of them nor from my paying job.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gosh Ms. giggles,

If you are working and not getting any help from the hubby with the chores, you could consider hiring domestic help.

Or you could just let things pile up.

Funny thing, never heard of "mens" chores or "womens" chores at our house.

Posted by create (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And here I am a single person who does it all. Those chores that I don't know how to do, I pay someone to do -- carpentry, $25/hour; plumbing $60/hour; tree trimming $30/branch; oil changes/tune-ups well, you know, the list goes on and on. And I still find time to quilt.

Giggles, sorry you are so overworked. I'm guessing his mama did all his stuff for him too.

My daughter is the major bread winner in her household. She travels often. Her husband works, but he also cooks, bakes bread, takes care of the child, washes, irons, does yard work, you name it. His tamales are to die for. He doesn't play golf but he does have a hobby. He paints portraits for people. This man is a gem. A real gem. He was one of seven boys whose mother was widowed early. She worked and refused to do for them. Instead, she trained all 7 to do housework and learn to take care of themselves. Today, all 7 are well-adjusted family men with decent jobs. There's something to be said for a strong woman who is an excellent mother and knows how to raise real men.

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

giggles,
Sounds to me that you need a new man. I'd never let my ol' lady bear the brunt of the work. As a married man, my "chore" is to keep my wife happy. That means I'll do tasks around the house without being asked. I do "men's chores" like lawn work and oil changes, but I also do dishes, laundry, our finances/taxes, sew buttons back on my shirts, and clean around the house. Heck, I even put the toilet seat down. (every time) All of this and I'm still the family bread winner.

Some of my older, female coworkers often complain about how they are expected to do everything from cooking every meal for their husbands to doing their laundry for them. I just don't see why these ladies put up with it. Maybe I'm just from a younger generation where equality among the sexes is more commonplace...

There is such a thing as divorce and, for some, it may be the best option. Don't waste your life being unhappy. Don’t be scared of change; get out while you can.
'enry

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would help with the laundry but my wife insists I say away. I think she is jealous that I can get done with one load what it takes her three or four loads to accomplish.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"There is such a thing as divorce and, for some, it may be the best option. Don't waste your life being unhappy. Don’t be scared of change; get out while you can."

This is the extreme that Erbe seems to be implying in her editorial that hits that very raw nerve of mine. To divorce and sacrifice your children over a few house chores is the most selfish, self-centered thing. It is what creates the homes that produce unfulfilled childhoods and incomplete development. I am a big advocate of getting to know who you plan to marry before you marry them, but once you're there, maybe you just need to learn how to be happy in the life you chose and learn how to be thankful for as many things about the person you married as you can. This "all about me" concept that drives so many has got to go before it ruins us for good. Erbe's guise of "progression" is really just a mask for that "me" centeredness.

YY4U:
I know your wife's plight....er "jealousy"...all too well, lol. Thank you for the laugh......and the reminder. that I have laundry to do before someone else gets to it and does it wrong. ;-))

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enry, doesn't surprise me one bit that you admit to being a "whipped" husband, fits your internet persona to a tee.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof

Do you believe there is ever a time when the children are better served by taking them out of a situation than by continuing to expose them to hostility, hatred, brutality, and even worse. Not all marriages end because of some "all about me" mentality. A study of the social history of this country finds ample evidence where women felt forced to remain in situations that ended up being very detrimental to not only themselves but also to their children. By placing such strong social stigma on divorce and single parent households many women and children will then feel forced to accept their lot and suffer in silence rather than get out.

I agree with you that marriages that end just because one partner or the other found a newer younger model.....or decided they wanted to play house on the other side of the street for awhile......are repugnant. Believe me I know...my marriage ended for just such a reason. But we must be careful not to condemn some children and spouses to a lifetime of hell by making any alternative to that life socially unacceptable.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I absolutely believe that there are some situations that children (and mothers) need to be removed from for their safety....emotional or physical. But since the author of this wanted to reduce everything down to housework (which was what Ashley took on in her reply editorial) and Henry also made it about divorce over housework, I was pointing out how petty the issue of housework really is. When housework or other petty discontentments are the driving force behind one spouse leaving, it puts any involved children at high and unnecessary risks.

I just don't think that people think through their own selfishness except to look for any justifications that they can find. There needs to be some stigma on the breaking apart of families. It needs to be necessary or it shouldn't happen..........and housework just doesn't cut it. (necessary would include every safe attempt made)

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof,
You said, "sacrifice your children". What in the world does that mean? "Sacrifice"? Do you really think it is better for your children to grow-up in a home where the father treats the mother so poorly? This is exactly why little boys grow-up thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable! Take action and stop the cycle!
True, it's "only housework" now, but what happens when it becomes "only verbal abuse" then "only emotional abuse" then "only physical abuse"... You made my point for me. Some women convince themselves they have to "stick it out" for their kids and the downward spiral often starts with the small stuff like chores. Get out while you can so you don’t regret wasting your life 20-50 years later.

neighbor,
Yep. I'm a whipped husband and also a momma's boy. Proud of it too. You got a problem with that?
'enry

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What part of "Until DEATH do us part" don't you understand America? The good ole USA has the highest divorce rates in the entire western world. I think it is time to start denying marriage licenses to straight people until they can prove without a reason of a doubt that they will not become a burden on society. Also, divorced couples need to pay an additional 35% tax to defray the costs to our society. At least price the marriage license to include the cost of a divorce.

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U,
How exactly are divorced couples a "burden on society"? Where does the "death do us part" come from anyway? Is that just a silly religious thing?
'enry

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A study released last month highlighted one more disturbing aspect of divorce: the financial burden it places on society. On April 15 — tax day — the Institute for American Values, the Georgia Family Council, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest released statistics showing the staggering annual taxpayer costs associated with divorce and unwed childbearing. Specifically, the report quantified a minimum $112 billion annual cost to citizens from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. That translates into more than $1 trillion in local, state and national costs over the past decade alone!

Oh yea, Marriage is another one of those silly religious things. Maybe the person asking for the divorce should be put to death as a matter of principal.

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U,
Your little study included "unmarried childbearing" which doesn't necessarily mean the parents were ever married/divorced. Generally speaking, parents who were once married have a better handle on their finances than parents that had a kid as a result of a one night stand. Please find a study of divorced people only. My advice of “get out while you can” could also be applied before kids come into the picture, so that is another group your study doesn’t address. (divorced with no kids)

Marriage is not really a religious thing. I didn't get married in a church and I certainly didn’t get married just to make God happy. Marriage is a societal thing. It is simply the legal term we, as a society, call a couple who have "partnered" at the highest level. Marriage is an important part of our society because it helps us classify people into groups. Humans like putting things into categories because it's easier to understand them when compared to other groups. That's why some people are so upset about gay marriage; it changes their definition of "marriage" and they are uncomfortable with that because it messes-up their current classification system.

I don’t know what you mean by, “Maybe the person asking for the divorce should be put to death as a matter of principal.” This was a very disturbing comment… I don’t know if you were scorned in a past relationship or what, but it seems like you could be a very dangerous person…
'enry

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"How exactly are divorced couples a "burden on society"? Where does the "death do us part" come from anyway? Is that just a silly religious thing?"

King Henry VIII of England, the Tudor monarch whose six wives had to fear execution, divorce, and death; father of Queen Elizabeth I and 'Bloody Mary'

Oh the irony.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Henry,
I would expect a woman to know when she is truly being abused and when she is just throwing a tantrum (by leaving the marriage) about having work to do. If she is concerned that it is leading to abuse, then it should be time for her to get counseling to gain an outside perspective. If she can, she should politely and winsomely ask her husband to accompany so she can communicate her position AND understand his. If she is not concerned about abuse, as in the seeming case of giggles, then she should do her best to have an understanding conversation with her husband which means being open to understanding his perspective as well as communicating hers. (I don't think giggles is throwing a tantrum, but simply expressing discontent)
By "sacrifice" I mean the heightened risks of sexual abuse to children whose mothers are pursuing their own frivolous whims. I mean the heightened risk of domestic violence from live-in boyfriends. I am not trying to lump people together, but this is the norm now. I am so very, very tired of crying my heart out for children in my own neighborhood after they tell me about hiding behind the couch as their mom's boyfriend beats her and teaches the sibling that is theirs together how to call mom names and spit at her. I am tired of calling law enforcement on mothers who let their first marriage's children go off with a "helpful" third party for the weekend and then won't call and report it when she finds out that the kids were abused there. I am tired of trying to work with the school concerning kids who have tons of (understandable) pent up rage that they take out on the classmates they are jealous of (like my kid). I am tired of the numbers of these kids outnumbering the ones who are protected and loved. I am tired and emotionally worn from these homes that are mostly formed after a divorce or break-up that stemmed from something petty as well as the fewer ones that need to be separated but aren't because the mother loves her abusive "relationship" more than she does her children. The separations that stemmed from a serious issue are the ones whose children are more protected than they would have been without the divorce, but those are fewer in number.
I can't possibly believe in evolution when I see our species collectively prioritizing and protecting our offspring less and less with each generation. In this light especially, it is much easier for me to see our species as sinners who are rebelling against the principles that were taught to us by a loving God because we don't want to believe in accountability to anyone but ourselves.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why take an oath if you don't really mean it?

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

May I remind everyone that the author of the article made this about housework, making it seem like an extreme. She did not mention or give place to any REAL extremes, so when I am responding to HER editorial, I am also likely to keep it on the level she placed it. When you question me about the extremes, I am answering about those, but those were not in my original comments as they weren't in the editorial piece.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'enry

I agree with neighbor that your position on this subject is so ironic considering the name you have chosen to post under. If Henry VIII was my user name I don't think I would get involved in any discussion about marriage.

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof,
When did this "loving God" teach you these principals? Correct me if I'm wrong, but other humans have taught you these principals, not God. Evolution has been proven; the existence of God has not. You find it easier to believe in fairy tales because they make you feel safe.
Animals in the wild have been known to abandon, kill, and sometimes even eat their young. Is this God's design? Are animals sinners too? If not, why are humans different?

bsicuitboy,
It's just a name, dude. There have been many Henry VIII's. Perhaps my name is really Henry and I'm actually the 8th guy in my family to carry the name...
If I had the username "biscuitboy" I wouldn't comment on anything because nobody would take me seriously with such a ridiculous name. Go eat some more biscuits, tubby! ;-) <---joking face
'enry

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Henry:
A study in anthropology would back up my statements. In a world where all cultures viewed women and children as the mens' properties, many countries and cultures changed their ways of treating women and children only after being exposed to the culture of the Hebrew nation. These "heathen" cultures never saw a need to change prior to the Hebrew influence and the Hebrews are the ones who credit God rather than claiming it as their own idea....which they could've done.
As to the animal kingdom, they have been affected by our sin curse. If you really wanted to know, I would go into further detail, but I have never gotten the sense that you want to do anything but argue about it, so I will not waste time getting very far off topic just so you can develop arguments. If you honestly want to know, please begin a thread on the news forums and I will be happy to discuss it more there.
Here, I will simply hold my position about housework being a petty argument in feminism...........after all, if we didn't have value in our society, we wouldn't have gotten all these appliances to make our lives easier. Yes, the men got some too (power tools) but that can be okay too, can't it, Erbe? Can't we all just share and get along??

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof,
Here you go!
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I accept your smiley face......but just so you will know Biscuit is the name of my male dog. He is the best dog I have ever known......in a matter of speaking he changed my life when he got me free of a drug addiction that was killing me. He is the most loyal and noble friend I have ever had. I often call him biscuitboy even though he is now close to ten years old....and when considering a user name I chose that as a tribute to him.

I have frequently regretted that decision because of the derision the name has often wrought......something that he does not deserve even if I might. So make fun of me if you will....but don't make fun of him. Thank You!

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm bumping this up solely in the hope that Henry VIII gets the chance to see my post about the meaning of my user name.
Sorry!

Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy,
I see. Quite the charming "tail"! Thanks for explanation. I'm sorry I made it necessary to clarify your choice of name. Like you, my username has little to do with the common meaning, but people read into it too much. Oh well...
'enry