• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Are American Women Living 5 Years Less than Their Mothers?

Way to ignore facts. When modern conveniences like washing machines, dryers, dish washers etc came out, women had a lot of time on their hands and spent much of that time watching soaps. The proof is that soaps existed and the only ones home at that time of day was women. Now if you want to go back to when women washed clothes and dishes for six kids and did it by hand you would have a point but modern women had it made in the shade.

Actually, many studies have shown that despite modern conveniences, we spend more time on household chores than before. The expectations of what was clean or sanitation went way up, causing more work.

Division of Labor - Historical Trends - Gender, Family, Women, and Time - JRank Articles

There has been a shift in the types of housework women are expected to do these days. It is still just as much work. Just because there were shows made to entice women to watch, didn't mean that all women watched them or that women did less work. Simply that the work had changed. You can easily watch soap operas while folding the laundry that is now expected to be done every day vice every week or so (people changed less). You can have soap operas (or other TV) playing in the background as you do other cleaning chores in the area. Plus, not every woman has to watch soaps or all the soaps. Most had their favorites, which took no more than an hour or two to watch during the day. They then did their housework or running errands. Then they were expected to take care of the children, much more her responsibility than the father's and cook dinner and whatever else needed to be done around the house, no matter the hour.

Plus, there was a higher expectation of women in the past to be most importantly a good wife and mother, no matter her own feelings on it. Men worked their jobs, with pretty much a set schedule. Women worked throughout the day, every day. And many still do. In general, housewives don't normally get a day off, such as on the weekends, since they are still expected to at least cook the meals and take care of the children those days too.

Things are changing and there definitely are more men who are taking on more responsibility, but I showed how women still do more than men, even when they work outside the homes, on average.
 
Actually, many studies have shown that despite modern conveniences, we spend more time on household chores than before. The expectations of what was clean or sanitation went way up, causing more work.

Division of Labor - Historical Trends - Gender, Family, Women, and Time - JRank Articles

There has been a shift in the types of housework women are expected to do these days. It is still just as much work. Just because there were shows made to entice women to watch, didn't mean that all women watched them or that women did less work. Simply that the work had changed. You can easily watch soap operas while folding the laundry that is now expected to be done every day vice every week or so (people changed less). You can have soap operas (or other TV) playing in the background as you do other cleaning chores in the area. Plus, not every woman has to watch soaps or all the soaps. Most had their favorites, which took no more than an hour or two to watch during the day. They then did their housework or running errands. Then they were expected to take care of the children, much more her responsibility than the father's and cook dinner and whatever else needed to be done around the house, no matter the hour.

Plus, there was a higher expectation of women in the past to be most importantly a good wife and mother, no matter her own feelings on it. Men worked their jobs, with pretty much a set schedule. Women worked throughout the day, every day. And many still do. In general, housewives don't normally get a day off, such as on the weekends, since they are still expected to at least cook the meals and take care of the children those days too.

Things are changing and there definitely are more men who are taking on more responsibility, but I showed how women still do more than men, even when they work outside the homes, on average.

No study will ever convince me an old farm woman with six kids that did everything by hand didn't have it ten times harder than a modern day housewife. Can you imagine hand washing all those clothes, wringing them out and hanging them all up? We are off grid and I tried to get my wife to wash that way, even bought her a cool old wringer and a washboard. No, I didn't stick them up my ass as requested!:lol:
 
No study will ever convince me an old farm woman with six kids that did everything by hand didn't have it ten times harder than a modern day housewife. Can you imagine hand washing all those clothes, wringing them out and hanging them all up? We are off grid and I tried to get my wife to wash that way, even bought her a cool old wringer and a washboard. No, I didn't stick them up my ass as requested!:lol:

Except many of those women who worked on the farm also had help, especially if they owned the farm and were well to do. They didn't all work all those chores. Plus, they didn't change their clothes nearly as often, they didn't have indoor plumbing (no toilets or tubs to clean at least once or twice a week, more often for many), no real regard to disinfecting anything, very little of the same cleaning we see nowdays.
 
Except many of those women who worked on the farm also had help, especially if they owned the farm and were well to do. They didn't all work all those chores. Plus, they didn't change their clothes nearly as often, they didn't have indoor plumbing (no toilets or tubs to clean at least once or twice a week, more often for many), no real regard to disinfecting anything, very little of the same cleaning we see nowdays.

Yes that explains the calluses on my great grand mothers hands may she RIP.
 
Yes that explains the calluses on my great grand mothers hands may she RIP.

My great grandmother did plenty of work too. It doesn't mean that she did a hell of a lot more than every single woman that lives in the US today. And their tasks were different as well.

It is called a "change in expectations". Just because modern conveniences cause less calluses and allow for less active methods of doing tasks, doesn't mean that women now spend a whole helluva lot less time doing the chores.

But women aren't the only ones who have less calluses today in their jobs compared to the past. Men too also have "modern conveniences" to help them do their jobs with less pain and/or injury than the past. Modern conveniences can make life more efficient.
 
My great grandmother did plenty of work too. It doesn't mean that she did a hell of a lot more than every single woman that lives in the US today. And their tasks were different as well.

It is called a "change in expectations". Just because modern conveniences cause less calluses and allow for less active methods of doing tasks, doesn't mean that women now spend a whole helluva lot less time doing the chores.

But women aren't the only ones who have less calluses today in their jobs compared to the past. Men too also have "modern conveniences" to help them do their jobs with less pain and/or injury than the past. Modern conveniences can make life more efficient.

Well you have a little bit of a point there. When I first started working in the woods, some old logger from the cross cut era said to me "chainsaw's just a way of getting the work of 10 men out of one".
 
Well you have a little bit of a point there. When I first started working in the woods, some old logger from the cross cut era said to me "chainsaw's just a way of getting the work of 10 men out of one".

It is mainly about the raising of expectations. No one would have blinked 100+ years ago about a woman having a "dirty" kitchen or not ensuring that everyone in her house got a bath, with soap, every night or every other night at least, or ensuring that the kids didn't wear dirty clothes to school. Now days, these sort of things can get a family investigated by child services in some parts of the country. (My parents had trouble with a neighbor when I was a teen who called child services on us more than once. During one of those talks, I actually got asked if we always had shampoo in the house. I doubt anybody in the early part of the 20th century would have considered that such a necessity that not having it could get your kids taken from you.)
 
I gave you a wealth of data and you have not yet used it. Start with that before you beg for more only to ignore that down the road.

It was explained to you previously but perhaps you also employed your amazing speed reading skills on that also and so missed its import................... here it is again .............

this is a rather recent sociological phenomena that has only now evidenced itself in the form of actual life and death statistics. It will take a good deal of research to be able to provide the hard and fast proof that you asked for. The facts are rather obvious and do not take a rocket scienstist to figure out:

*** roles for American women have changed significantly over the last thirty to forty years causing more to be employed outside of the home and fewer stay at home moms or housewives.
*** at the same time, women are living shorter years on the planet so that their life expectancy is now closer to that of men who also are mostly in the workforce.

But tell you what I will do for you...... when the definitive study comes out sometimes in the next decade, I will be glad to post it here.................. and fully expect you will ignore that also.


Oh dear... priceless.

In your snit you accidentally admitted that there is actually now definitive study that proves your point. Looks like it was a great choice not to waste my time reading all the links you posted to articles that don't support your assertions. But then I already told you what they all say... I'm starting to wonder if you read even as much as I did. Apparently not.

You have yet to quote one. Wow me with your knowledge of the contents of those articles! Show me YOU read them!
 
It is mainly about the raising of expectations. No one would have blinked 100+ years ago about a woman having a "dirty" kitchen or not ensuring that everyone in her house got a bath, with soap, every night or every other night at least, or ensuring that the kids didn't wear dirty clothes to school. Now days, these sort of things can get a family investigated by child services in some parts of the country. (My parents had trouble with a neighbor when I was a teen who called child services on us more than once. During one of those talks, I actually got asked if we always had shampoo in the house. I doubt anybody in the early part of the 20th century would have considered that such a necessity that not having it could get your kids taken from you.)

You have worn me down, I give up, you win. But there is still the soap opera issue, it tells me house wives have a lot of free time on their hands. Please don't respond, I surrender.:lol:
 
Oh dear... priceless.

In your snit you accidentally admitted that there is actually now definitive study that proves your point. Looks like it was a great choice not to waste my time reading all the links you posted to articles that don't support your assertions. But then I already told you what they all say... I'm starting to wonder if you read even as much as I did. Apparently not.

You have yet to quote one. Wow me with your knowledge of the contents of those articles! Show me YOU read them!

My point was proven by the volume of information I provided for you earlier and you dismissed in three minutes after not reading it. Now you want me to read them for you, write a summary and use a yellow highlighter to give you only the high points. Sorry pal - but if you want me to teach you at that level of detail with you sitting back on your rear simply soaking it all in - we can arrange for private tutorial rates. I have provided you with the information. Now read it.

My point has been the same from the start: women are now in the workforce in much larger numbers than sixty years ago and they still have the responsibilities of children and home as well. You were provided with a raft of information supporting this. You have said that you do not dispute this. So what is it that you think is my point?

Here is what you claimed in your own post #86 was my point

In context it very much sounds like you were making the point that single moms live shorter lives.

Which I never said. You want to argue about things I never said nor claimed. Again, please quote me directly (just like I did here for you with exact words and a post number) so we all can see what you think my "point" is.
 
Last edited:
You have worn me down, I give up, you win. But there is still the soap opera issue, it tells me house wives have a lot of free time on their hands. Please don't respond, I surrender.:lol:

Get with the times, women watch Rachel Ray now. :lol:
 
My point was proven by the volume of information I provided for you earlier and you dismissed in three minutes after not reading it. Now you want me to read them for you, write a summary and use a yellow highlighter to give you only the high points. Sorry pal - but if you want me to teach you at that level of detail with you sitting back on your rear simply soaking it all in - we can arrange for private tutorial rates. I have provided you with the information. Now read it.


Seeing as how you STILL haven't provided a single shred of supporting info from those links it is safe to say that you haven't read the links either. You don't win debates on "volumes of information", the information actually has to support your case. None of your links appear to support your case and I'll be damned if I am going to invest more time in reading your evidence than you have.


My point has been the same from the start: women are now in the workforce in much larger numbers than sixty years ago and they still have the responsibilities of children and home as well. You were provided with a raft of information supporting this. You have said that you do not dispute this. So what is it that you think is my point?

And Men are still in the work force more than women and their responsibilities at home have increased and yet their life expectancy isn't declining. And as I showed in the BLS statistics, when you count household chores, child care and work (the three sources of work in your hypothesis) men do more of it than women do all combined. Therefor it is illogical to assume the combination of housework, childcare and job is the cause of a decline in women's life expectancy.

Here is what you claimed in your own post #86 was my point

Which I never said. You want to argue about things I never said nor claimed. Again, please quote me directly (just like I did here for you with exact words and a post number) so we all can see what you think my "point" is.


Hah, how about no. Let me draw your attention to this exchange:

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
The combined pressures of being in the workforce plus still having to do the vast majority of the household tasks are taking a toll.

HAHA! In your house maybe...


Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
HAHA! In your house maybe...
I was speaking about the situation in tens of millions of homes in the USA.


Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
I was speaking about the situation in tens of millions of homes in the USA.
Are you talking about single parent households?

Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
Are you talking about single parent households?
Women raising kids without a husband in the house.


So you said yourself that your initial comment of women shouldering more of the work is the cause of their decreasing life expectancy and clarified that you were talking about single mothers.

Yea... how on Earth could I have possibly construed that to mean that you thought single moms lived shorter lives!? To do that I would have had to interpret your words exactly as you stated them.

This calls for an eye-roll. :roll:
 
Get with the times, women watch Rachel Ray now. :lol:

I'm a housewife right now and have a preschooler at home. If the TV is on, there is a cartoon or other show on it. I generally leave it off though.
 
Maybe women today are working too hard. Too many deadbeats.
 
My first thought was birth control pills. Before anybody freaks out, I'm NOT against birth control pills but as I understand it over the long term I hear they do add certain health risks to some women including an increased risk of cancer and blot clots that could lead to heart attacks and strokes. I'm not a doctor so this should not be construed to imply any medical advice other than to seek the advice of one's own doctor but I've heard its best in some cases not to be on birth control pills forever but rather alternate between pills and other methods then consider his or her surgical options once all the bedrooms are filled with all the kids you want.

Birth Control The Pill & Breast Cancer Risk - WebMD
Study: Newer Birth Control Pills May Double Blood Clot Risk

My second thought was more stressful lives including being more likely to work outside of the home while still doing a good deal of domestic stuff often as single moms. I don't mean to sound sexist but the stereotype of men not being able to multitask well and with women its a breeze, I don't know who came up with that one :lamo. My observations of the women I know is they'll will push themselves to do what they must but they do have a breaking point and are on the verge of a meltdown if too much is on their plates. I think men can handle stress a lot better.

PS. This is why if you care you should never let a woman have the remote control.
 
Last edited:
Maybe all you need is love. Experts Say Love Makes You Live Longer and Stay Healthy | Medindia.

And the point is not necessarily how long you live but how will you live. As Proust pointed out we can discover the beauty is smaller things, not just mountains, chateaus and sunsets, but in old faces, a peach, faded advertising signs. And we can ignore the common culture which often demeans women, and thus demeans men. Check out old movies where romance wasn't a corny word, where love songs were about existing love and people actually held hands and two parent families had fun together without putting each other down. And of course classical music and older architecture has taught us how wonderfully creative our fellow man can be.

Maybe life is more cluttered and negative now but it can still be more positive and beautiful if we know where to look.
 
Seeing as how you STILL haven't provided a single shred of supporting info from those links it is safe to say that you haven't read the links either.






So you said yourself that your initial comment of women shouldering more of the work is the cause of their decreasing life expectancy and clarified that you were talking about single mothers.

[/B]

This calls for an eye-roll. :roll:

1 - You gave up any right to attempt to force me to interpret the links for you when you demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you had not read them by dismissing them in a mere three minutes before your reply. thats how it works. You cannot come back later and pretend otherwise.

The fact is that you demanded evidence and I gave it to you.............. in spades no less ............... and you did not even have the integrity to read it.

Sorry but you lost the high ground on that with your own dishonest and dismissive tactics.

2 - you still have not yet reproduced a quote from me saying what you claim I said. Perhaps the closest (if that is the right term) comes when I said that burning the candle on both ends in terms of full time employment combined with household and children "takes a toll". Things can TAKE A TOLL in lots of ways...... physically..... mentally ... domestically .... family dynamics..... socially .... time availability and allocation .................and possibly in longevity. the list goes on.

3- yes - an eye roll is indeed in order .................. for you and your posts trying to put words into my posts that are not there and refusing to accept reality.

so here we go............. :roll::roll::roll:

But please tell me an answer to an honest question: why is it necessary for you to be dismissive of the idea that the change in the role of women over the last half decade has taken a toll on them?

Can you explain that please?
 
1 - You gave up any right to attempt to force me to interpret the links for you when you demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you had not read them by dismissing them in a mere three minutes before your reply. thats how it works. You cannot come back later and pretend otherwise.

The fact is that you demanded evidence and I gave it to you.............. in spades no less ............... and you did not even have the integrity to read it.

Sorry but you lost the high ground on that with your own dishonest and dismissive tactics.


So wait a minute... it is your opinion that you shouldn't have to read YOUR OWN EVIDENCE until others read it? Why do you insist on making yourself look like a fool?

You didn't read your own provided evidence, we all see that is plainly clear. Why should ANYONE have to read it before you do?


2 - you still have not yet reproduced a quote from me saying what you claim I said. Perhaps the closest (if that is the right term) comes when I said that burning the candle on both ends in terms of full time employment combined with household and children "takes a toll". Things can TAKE A TOLL in lots of ways...... physically..... mentally ... domestically .... family dynamics..... socially .... time availability and allocation .................and possibly in longevity. the list goes on.


Yes I did. In a thread about declining female life expectancy you blamed it on the increased work women have to do... and then clarified your position to the extra work single moms have to do. It's right there. Everyone can see what you said. Stop denying the patently obvious.

This argument is only slightly less pathetic than your argument above that you shouldn't have to read your own evidence because I didn't.



3- yes - an eye roll is indeed in order .................. for you and your posts trying to put words into my posts that are not there and refusing to accept reality.

so here we go............. :roll::roll::roll:



It is well documented now what your claim was, what you provided as evidence of your claim, and that you admit to having not read it.

But then you also already admitted that there is no definitive study (read: any) that backs your original claim... at least none that you have read. But then that isn't really ruling anything out because you don't read your own evidence.


But please tell me an answer to an honest question: why is it necessary for you to be dismissive of the idea that the change in the role of women over the last half decade has taken a toll on them?


I never made that claim. In fact, my original claim was PRECISELY that the drive for equality for women has been detrimental to their health. This places no value claim on women's equality, just popinting out that equality isn't all sunshine and roses. There are trade offs -- hence my "Monkey's Paw" comment way back at the beginning of this thread. They strive to live like men and they now die more like men.

What I DIDN'T say was that the combo of housework and a job is shortening women's lifespan because the statistics say just the opposite. Men have been shouldering a greater load of the household chores over the same time period and the added workload doesn't appear to be affecting them. So in the long run it has nothing to do with household chores and everything to do with working outside the home.

It actually poses a pretty interesting line of study on logevity. For ever the thought was there was something simply biological in the differences in the life span of men and women. This current turn of events seems to indicate that the differences are largely environmental.

But none of this changes the fact that YOU DON'T READ YOUR OWN EVIDENCE. :lol:
 
So wait a minute... it is your opinion that you shouldn't have to read YOUR OWN EVIDENCE until others read it?

You gave up any right to attempt to force me to interpret the links for you when you demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you had not read them by dismissing them in a mere three minutes before your reply. thats how it works. You cannot come back later and pretend otherwise.
That does NOT mean I did not read my own links. That is you making crap up and then wanting to argue about it.

You remind me of Indiana Jones in the first RAIDERS movie where he admits to just making it up as he goes along. And that is what you just did with this nonsense.

You make crap up about what you think I said and then respond to your own nonsense. You still have not produced any quote from me stating what you claim I stated. And you will not do it in your next post either.

It is funny to watch you argue with yourself hoping that you can get me to take your own nonsense on as my own position.
 
Last edited:
...Scientists Baffled by Shocking Trend

The increase in unmarried single mothers, the increase in women in the work force, the rise of alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse, the dissolution of the poor white community and the social support and religious and moral traditions that go with it would be my guesses as to why.

Men, on the other hand, are living a little longer, and the difference between male and female life spans is decreasing. American men's longevity was about 7.8 years shorter than women's in 1972 but the difference dropped to 5 years in 2005. Perhaps women pay a price when they take on the roles traditionally assigned to men, especially the role of sole breadwinner.

I see one thing right away. Those states that are listed as being the worst of the heap?

They are the same states that have the worst prenatal care, and experience extremely high infant and mother mortality.

I suspect that is a big reason. It has become such a serious problem in some of the South that it's being called a crisis. It's the worst in the developed world.

Secondly, what we are seeing right now is not women taking roles "traditionally assigned to men." What we are seeing -- especially in poor states -- is women taking ALL roles. Not only working, but also being the only caretaker of children -- even if they're married, in some cases. That's a very different thing.

Even though women are working, they are still extreme minorities in the riskiest professions. So their work lives in and of themselves are probably not contributing much to their mortality. But the stress level of being not only the sole worker, but also the sole parent, probably is.

In addition to that, we are realizing now that obesity affects women much more than previously thought. We formerly thought men were higher risk of heart disease, but we're learning that's not true. Men have more dramatic coronary events, but women often have hidden illnesses. Up until very recently, women were often under-treated for heart disease because no one realized what was going on.

Along the same vein, obesity and high estrogen exposure is causing extremely early puberty in a lot of girls -- often while still in elementary school. This contributes to risk of various diseases later in life, including cancer, depression, diabetes, and a bunch of other things.

As far as your guesses, you're completely off-base. America has the lowest rates of smoking in the West, and women are smoking less than men, and less than they did 50 years ago.

As far as alcohol, I'm not 100% sure if it's higher or lower, but I do know that drug abuse was rampant in the days of the Stepford wife. Sometimes it was alcohol, and sometimes it was benzos, but women were abusing drugs plenty, partly because they were miserable.

Furthermore, we now know that men's life expectancy gap is not entire related to lifestyle. Yes, high risk professions and being riskier in their youths do tilt the odds, but there are also cellular causes at work that are inherent to having a Y chromosome. Women's bodies appear to expend more energy repairing damage throughout their lives, whereas testosterone seems to suppress this somewhat. This probably contributes to their slightly shorter life expectancy.

In short, this has nothing to do with women "being equal." It actually probably has to do with a combination of things: the ravages of poverty, the epidemic of obesity, and the lack of women's health care.
 
Last edited:
My first thought was birth control pills. Before anybody freaks out, I'm NOT against birth control pills but as I understand it over the long term I hear they do add certain health risks to some women including an increased risk of cancer and blot clots that could lead to heart attacks and strokes. I'm not a doctor so this should not be construed to imply any medical advice other than to seek the advice of one's own doctor but I've heard its best in some cases not to be on birth control pills forever but rather alternate between pills and other methods then consider his or her surgical options once all the bedrooms are filled with all the kids you want.

Birth Control The Pill & Breast Cancer Risk - WebMD
Study: Newer Birth Control Pills May Double Blood Clot Risk

This is a little more complex than it looks at first blush.

First, it is true there is a link.

However, this is only in women who have been on it for a long time, and stayed on it into their high-risk years.

For women who have gone off birth control, their breast cancer risk does eventually return to normal.

Second, the increase in risk with MODERN birth control is much lower than it was with older forms of the pill. The hormonal doses now are much lower, so the risk is much lower as well.

And finally, you're trading one cancer risk for another: using birth control at some point in your life lowers your risk of ovarian cancer. And here's the interesting part. It actually STAYS lower, even after you go off it, because ovarian cancer risk functions on a scale of how many natural cycles you had in your life.

In the end, it's kind of a wash, and it may ultimately be better because ovarian cancer is a lot deadlier than breast cancer. However, women entering middle age should really consider if other forms of birth control may be better for them as their risk rises with age.
 
I see one thing right away. Those states that are listed as being the worst of the heap?

They are the same states that have the worst prenatal care, and experience extremely high infant and mother mortality.

I suspect that is a big reason. It has become such a serious problem in some of the South that it's being called a crisis. It's the worst in the developed world.

Secondly, what we are seeing right now is not women taking roles "traditionally assigned to men." What we are seeing -- especially in poor states -- is women taking ALL roles. Not only working, but also being the only caretaker of children -- even if they're married, in some cases. That's a very different thing.

Even though women are working, they are still extreme minorities in the riskiest professions. So their work lives in and of themselves are probably not contributing much to their mortality. But the stress level of being not only the sole worker, but also the sole parent, probably is.

In addition to that, we are realizing now that obesity affects women much more than previously thought. We formerly thought men were higher risk of heart disease, but we're learning that's not true. Men have more dramatic coronary events, but women often have hidden illnesses. Up until very recently, women were often under-treated for heart disease because no one realized what was going on.

Along the same vein, obesity and high estrogen exposure is causing extremely early puberty in a lot of girls -- often while still in elementary school. This contributes to risk of various diseases later in life, including cancer, depression, diabetes, and a bunch of other things.

As far as your guesses, you're completely off-base. America has the lowest rates of smoking in the West, and women are smoking less than men, and less than they did 50 years ago.

As far as alcohol, I'm not 100% sure if it's higher or lower, but I do know that drug abuse was rampant in the days of the Stepford wife. Sometimes it was alcohol, and sometimes it was benzos, but women were abusing drugs plenty, partly because they were miserable.

Furthermore, we now know that men's life expectancy gap is not entire related to lifestyle. Yes, high risk professions and being riskier in their youths do tilt the odds, but there are also cellular causes at work that are inherent to having a Y chromosome. Women's bodies appear to expend more energy repairing damage throughout their lives, whereas testosterone seems to suppress this somewhat. This probably contributes to their slightly shorter life expectancy.

In short, this has nothing to do with women "being equal." It actually probably has to do with a combination of things: the ravages of poverty, the epidemic of obesity, and the lack of women's health care.

It seems that when women's organizations wanted their social roles changed they expected men's social roles to continue much as they had been for previous centuries, but that's largely disappeared. The law of unexpected consequences strikes again!

Some men discovered that they need a steady woman like a fish needs a bicycle.
 
It seems that when women's organizations wanted their social roles changed they expected men's social roles to continue much as they had been for previous centuries, but that's largely disappeared. The law of unexpected consequences strikes again!

Some men discovered that they need a steady woman like a fish needs a bicycle.

Did you ready any of my post, dude? :lol:
 
You gave up any right to attempt to force me to interpret the links for you when you demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you had not read them by dismissing them in a mere three minutes before your reply. thats how it works. You cannot come back later and pretend otherwise.
That does NOT mean I did not read my own links. That is you making crap up and then wanting to argue about it.

You remind me of Indiana Jones in the first RAIDERS movie where he admits to just making it up as he goes along. And that is what you just did with this nonsense.

You make crap up about what you think I said and then respond to your own nonsense. You still have not produced any quote from me stating what you claim I stated. And you will not do it in your next post either.

It is funny to watch you argue with yourself hoping that you can get me to take your own nonsense on as my own position.


You keep saying i that I gave up all rights to comment when I didn't read your links... BUT YOU DIDN'T READ YOUR LINKS. How can you possibly expect anyone else to give more time to your evidence than you have? I have asked you to show me that you have a grasp of your own evidence and you have continued dodge. You refuse to read your links even now.

I at least read enough of each of them to determine what they were trying to show, and all of them were making the same exact point WHICH DOESN'T PROVE YOUR POINT.

I see now that you are trying to change what you said originally, but the great irony is that while you have now changed your argument to meet your evidence, what your evidence says is precisely what I said it said after my review. Now you are bitching at me for not reading your links even though I drew the exact same conclusion from your evidence that you are now arguing AND your argument is now in line with the argument that I have been making all along.

Women aren't living shorter lives because of the combination of work and household chores. The data doesn't support that. They are living shorter lives because they are living their lives increasingly the same way men do.

So, back to my original point:

Vive la Equality!

I hope this was not too subtle for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom