₦airaland Forum

Shollypopzz:
Babez, how far?

First of all, I don't understand what the fuss is about. Bruce Jenner is just another transgender. In fact, I think his choice to change is very selfish. If you are going to change, change before you have kids. Change before you deceive women into thinking you are who you are.

Look at his kids. Imagine how this decision affects them; Their father is now their mother??

I bet you that if this was an African American family, Bruce and the entire Katrashian family will not receive the praises they receive in the media today. They would be called ghetto and all sorts of names.

Kim got famous from a porn tape. She got pregnant for a rapper while legally married to another man. Khloe married a coke addict and Kylie is a high school drop-out. She is 17 and dating a grown man aged 25; she is a social media slut who posts naked pics like her older sister for attention. Kourtney has two kids out of wedlock. Rob is an overweight bastard who is sexually attracted to his sister- Kim.

Bruce/Caitlyn is NOT a hero, he is not the first transgender and he would not be the last. Nothing he has done is courageous, he is selfish. After three wives and five kids, you realize you do not feel like a man? Fvck him to the power of infinity! He is a damaged man who failed his kids.

Sholly 0!

You have catalogued lots of sin, but nothing illegal - or beyond the pale liberally speaking - are you now born-again !


TV
^{...and in some ways this comes across as a race-tinged hate-rant}

TV01:
Those are at best minor impediments - in fact, I believe I covered them off already.

1.
All they have ot show is that the relationships are in some ways beneficial. A claim that has been made for "intergenerational relationships".

2.
Minors can give consent - especially if the age of consent is lowered so that they are no longer minors. That is also being pursued. Currently 9 is seen as the target. Ultimately it wil be removed altogether.

NAMBLA and the homosexual lobby it is part of are just being practical in making it appear seperate - for the time being.

It's all out there - anyway, we shall see.


TV

You're reaching, don't you think? Shed them in whatever light they may within the media (that of the so-called 'loving caring relationship' if they wish), but neither consent nor abuse has ever been a glossed over issue with the LGBT movement.

Who is changing the age of consent to nine?

If anything, I reckon it's prostitution that's most likely next on the legalization route. Perhaps even in.cest at some point if we're stretching it far, and being extremely radical with it. Little else fits the bill, and there's absolutely no reason to assume consent and abuse will suddenly become minor impediments, or of little regard or consequence in common law as you've been stipulating. Law and order simply cannot stand thus. And what is the prime function of law if not the curtailing of societal abuses?

As you say - we shall see.

EnlightenedSoul:
You're reaching, don't you think?

No.

EnlightenedSoul:
Shed them in whatever light they may within the media (that of the so-called 'loving caring relationship' if they wish), but neither consent nor abuse has ever been a glossed over issue with the LGBT movement.

Consent? For animals? When did turkeys vote for christmas ? The only consent that matters is "the age of". It's already out there - in Govt and amongst the general populace, and obviously homactivists;

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/lower-age-consent-14-1979-home-office-report
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-age-of-consent-be-lowered-to-13

EnlightenedSoul:
Who is changing the age of consent to nine?

As above...small, small...

EnlightenedSoul:
If anything, I reckon it's prostitution that's most likely next on the legalization route. Perhaps even in.cest at some point if we're stretching it far, and being extremely radical with it. Little else fits the bill, and there's absolutely no reason to assume consent and abuse will suddenly become minor impediments, or of little regard or consequence in common law as you've been stipulating. Law and order simply cannot stand thus.

Prostitution, I agree, but it is already treated benignly anyway. Polyamoury etc are all on the cards. As for incest, please, that too is already beeing seriously discussed. You may be more sheltered than I am !

EnlightenedSoul:
As you say - we shall see.

Probably while we are both still on here. Expect a mention some time in the near future .


TV

TV01:
No.
Consent? For animals? When did turkeys vote for christmas ? The only consent that matters is "the age of". It's already out there - in Govt and amongst the general populace, and obviously homactivists;

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/lower-age-consent-14-1979-home-office-report
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-age-of-consent-be-lowered-to-13

It's obviously not an issue of consent with animals, per se. It cannot speak. It's abuse! There's a stark difference between eating your thanksgiving turkey as you ought and fo.ndling it, mind you A difference between using your beast of burden to carry loads for you, and painfully over-burdening it. Between properly caring for and owning a pack of dogs, and forcing them to tear each apart for your affection, scraps of food, and your betting pleasure. If a certain animal's purpose is to feed you, the least you owe it is a swift death. If certain beasts are suited to carry your loads, the very least you owe it is food/water/care, and a reasonable load. But to engage in intercourse with a beast, tell me how does one reconcile this? It's abuse, and not its purpose.

Those links aren't satisfying, tho. Did you read those comments on Debate.org? And that bit on the PIE() drama(s) that occurred in the 80's. Do you see that they're backtracking, confessing wrongs?

As above...small, small...

It's clear that isn't probable at all. Frankly, it's causing me to view the UK as some kind of underground pedophile cesspool (I think I'm kidding). It's not possible. Someone in the UK should please come speak to this...

Prostitution, I agree, but it is already treated benignly anyway. Polyamoury etc are all on the cards. As for incest, please, that too is already beeing seriously discussed. You may be more sheltered than I am !

There are already some prostitution joints in Nevada and the like. I believe I've driven past a prominent one on one of my visits there. Honestly, its eventual legalization is only to be expected - it's consensual, involves no abuse w/ regulation, and has business potential.

I actually know some polyamorous couples, and it isn't a particularly new lifestyle btw. Besides, many self-professed monogamous couples are practitioners of polyamory on the sly - perhaps some/all humans simply weren't built to withstand a 50 year relationship/marriage with one person (we used to live shorter lives, and monogamy in itself is a fairly new concept). In.cest is another thing entirely. If ever fully accepted at all, it will take a veryyy long time whereupon I trust the participants will be swiftly sterilized, or at least ought to be in my express opinion! It poses a societal health/genetic threat.

Probably while we are both still on here. Expect a mention some time in the near future .

TV

Hmm.

EnlightenedSoul:
It's obviously not an issue of consent with animals, per se. It cannot speak. It's abuse! There's a stark difference between eating your thanksgiving turkey as you ought and fo.ndling it, mind you A difference between using your beast of burden to carry loads for you, and painfully over-burdening it. Between properly caring for and owning a pack of dogs, and forcing them to tear each apart for your affection, scraps of food, and your betting pleasure. If a certain animal's purpose is to feed you, the least you owe it is a swift death. If certain beasts are suited to carry your loads, the very least you owe it is food/water/care, and a reasonable load. But to engage in intercourse with a beast, tell me how does one reconcile this? It's abuse, and not its purpose.

Abuse? According to inter-species lovers, it's the exact opposite. Without wanting to gross anyone out, how does one characterise the excitement of a dog with a female human as abuse. Or an animal that is mollycoddled - housed and fed like a child - due to it's intimate relationship with it's master as immoral?

They claim the animals are not only willing, but enjoy it. And why would you think animals would prefer death or short, brutal lives as beasts of burden, to that kind of care and attention.

EnlightenedSoul:
Those links aren't satisfying, tho. Did you read those comments on Debate.org? And that bit on the PIE() drama(s) that occurred in the 80's. Do you see that they're backtracking, confessing wrongs?

No, they test public sentiment and re-set accordingly. Homactivist Peter Tatchell claimed an age of 9 is both good and beneficial, when it didn't go down well with the public, he tactically revised this to 14. They advance on many fronts.

EnlightenedSoul:
It's clear that isn't probable at all. Frankly, it's causing me to view the UK as some kind of underground pedophile cesspool (I think I'm kidding). It's not possible. Someone in the UK should please come speak to this...

And you wouldn't be far wrong - ask anyone. We've had a festering situation where numerous high-ranking members of parliment have been implicated for years. All the informants have been intimidated, police investigations have been short-circuited, and "public enquiries" have gotten nowhere. No one has been charged.

Files handed to a government minister went missing, only for said minister to die, at which point it's revealed said minister was the subject of the file . There was widespread knowledge in Westminister about others - Cyril Smith for instance - he lived large till he died. Only then did it come it to public attention.

What about Jimmy Saville? Decades of abuse covered up. And on such a scale, and by such a public figure, he had to have enblers and co-conspirators. The whole of the British establisment/elite is implicated. Abeg Damiso, Coogar, please, am I being sensationalist here?

EnlightenedSoul:
There are already some prostitution joints in Nevada and the like. I believe I've driven past a prominent one on one of my visits there. Honestly, its eventual legalization is only to be expected - it's consensual, involves no abuse w/ regulation, and has business potential.

No brainer - like I said, it's not exactly criminalised now. regardless of the curren tlegal position.

EnlightenedSoul:
I actually know some polyamorous couples, and it isn't a particularly new lifestyle btw. Besides, many self-professed monogamous couples are practitioners of polyamory on the sly - perhaps some/all humans simply weren't built to withstand a 50 year relationship/marriage with one person (we used to live shorter lives, and monogamy in itself is a fairly new concept). In.cest is another thing entirely. If ever fully accepted at all, it will take a veryyy long time whereupon I trust the participants will be swiftly sterilized, or at least ought to be in my express opinion! It poses a societal health/genetic threat.

The arguments for legalising incest pretty much mirror those for homosexuality - and pass your own test - consent and non-abusive, no?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/34/9/e11.abstract
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/david_epsteins.php

EnlightenedSoul:
Hmm.

We will go from Hmm to SMH !


TV

Just because you wear a corset, high heels and a damn wig does not make you a woman. Just because you wish to be, wanna be, hope to be, think you have always been, does not make you a woman. A woman, like a man, is respected, admired and loved because of who they are and what they do for their family. He created children Bruce, by having sex like a man. He lied to his wives, who now say they didn't know, especially Chris for the longest time. He is a charlatan for sure, a man, no, a real man doesn't use women like he did. And he hardly, hardly a real woman.

TV01:
Abuse? According to inter-species lovers, it's the exact opposite. Without wanting to gross anyone out, how does one characterise the excitement of a dog with a female human as abuse. Or an animal that is mollycoddled - housed and fed like a child - due to it's intimate relationship with it's master as immoral?

They claim the animals are not only willing, but enjoy it. And why would you think animals would prefer death or short, brutal lives as beasts of burden, to that kind of care and attention.

That's basically implying that the animal would certainly rather get screwed than stewed, no? That because you "mollycoddle it like a child", it wouldn't be too farfetched to seek other 'favors' of it? See the personalization there? Aside from conjuring a disturbing picture, it's an inaccurate assumption which fails to dismiss the irrationality behind the act. Scientifically speaking, animals give off pheromones that are designed, at given times, to trigger sexual responses in the opposite sex. These pheromones are within-species pheromones, so just because something in your effed up mentality attracts you to the beast as an "across-species lover", it means not that the beast indeed wants, or is designed to have sex with you. Blegh.

No, they test public sentiment and re-set accordingly. Homactivist Peter Tatchell claimed an age of 9 is both good and beneficial, when it didn't go down well with the public, he tactically revised this to 14. They advance on many fronts.

I looked him up. He lost a lot of long-time supporters because of it, and even his revisionary statement wasn't well received. In any case, he's an outlier.

And you wouldn't be far wrong - ask anyone. We've had a festering situation where numerous high-ranking members of parliment have been implicated for years. All the informants have been intimidated, police investigations have been short-circuited, and "public enquiries" have gotten nowhere. No one has been charged.

Files handed to a government minister went missing, only for said minister to die, at which point it's revealed said minister was the subject of the file . There was widespread knowledge in Westminister about others - Cyril Smith for instance - he lived large till he died. Only then did it come it to public attention.

What about Jimmy Saville? Decades of abuse covered up. And on such a scale, and by such a public figure, he had to have enblers and co-conspirators. The whole of the British establisment/elite is implicated. Abeg Damiso, Coogar, please, am I being sensationalist here

Scandalous coverups among the high-ranking are hardly a novel thing. Despite it all, it never smells of possible legalization. In fact, it's almost-meticulously covered up, and when aired the public response is always one of outrage.

The arguments for legalising incest pretty much mirror those for homosexuality - and pass your own test - consent and non-abusive, no?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/34/9/e11.abstract
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/david_epsteins.php

TV

As earlier mentioned, it does fit the bill - objectively speaking. Still, it would require lobbying, and we've no reason to believe that ince.stuous people even desire an out-of-the-closet lifestyle, so to speak. It's unique in that it goes beyond the personal level (of the two involved), and awakens entire families to the 'issue'. If it does, they should be sterilized.

We're derailing OP's thread, I think..

EnlightenedSoul:
That's basically implying that the animal would certainly rather get screwed than stewed, no? That because you "mollycoddle it like a child", it wouldn't be too farfetched to seek other 'favors' of it? See the personalization there? Aside from conjuring a disturbing picture, it's an inaccurate assumption which fails to dismiss the irrationality behind the act. Scientifically speaking, animals give off pheromones that are designed, at given times, to trigger sexual responses in the opposite sex. These pheromones are within-species pheromones, so just because something in your effed up mentality attracts you to the beast as an "across-species lover", it means not that the beast indeed wants, or is designed to have sex with you. Blegh.

"Irrationality" cannot be introduced as a criteria . It's about feeling, autonomy, consent, harm, etc. It can be and has been demonstrated that the animals are "happy". Tails wagging furiously . And likewise for any notion of "design" or "functionality" or "blegh". There are rational reasons (design, functionality, outcome) against homosex and incsex. But these are never brought to bear. Why should they be here?

EnlightenedSoul:
I looked him up. He lost a lot of long-time supporters because of it, and even his revisionary statement wasn't well received. In any case, he's an outlier.

Outlier? No way - he's establishment. Mark my words, he will be honoured with an order/knighthood at some point. And more to the point he is feted by the liberal elite. He acts as a very good stalking horse.

EnlightenedSoul:
Scandalous coverups among the high-ranking are hardly a novel thing. Despite it all, it never smells of possible legalization. In fact, it's almost-meticulously covered up, and when aired the public response is always one of outrage.

Agreed. But the cover-ups are not because they think it's wrong or to clean up quietly, but, because they know it won't be acceptable - at the moment. But it's clear their are hignly-connected rings, who engage in this immorality. Establishment figures spanning politics, church, police, media, entertainment etc. For them it's expedient to do so, it means people aren't on alert. They actually dispose of some child abuse victims, but all we have are missing child reports.

EnlightenedSoul:
As earlier mentioned, it does fit the bill - objectively speaking. Still, it would require lobbying, and we've no reason to believe that ince.stuous people even desire an out-of-the-closet lifestyle, so to speak. It's unique in that it goes beyond the personal level (of the two involved), and awakens entire families to the 'issue'. If it does, they should be sterilized.

One thing that is out there now is that increased visibility and agitation creates acceptance. Be it by making it appear normal or wearying those who resist (especially if they are persecuted for doing so).

Deny them rights by sterilizing them. All it does is increase the risk of genetic defects, they are stil there and non-related couples still give birth to children with genetic defects. It's a more obvious case of discrimination than homosex.

EnlightenedSoul:
We're derailing OP's thread, I think..

It's al about the traffic = OP is MIA . Sholly 0!!!!!!!!!


TV

cococandy:
Shollypopz I've an even better question.

There's a bill going around demanding that the medals Caitlyn Jenner won as a man be revoked since Bruce Jenner no longer exists.


I argued that Bruce did exist and won it as a man. She's now Caitlyn doesn't mean the awards are null and avoid. after all no one revokes the awards given to a person when they die and stop existing.
So I figured Bruce should be treated as a dead man who Caitlyn is a reincarnation of.

(I don't even know if that makes much sense. It does to me anyway )


But a lot of people were singing the stuff and someone even sent it to me to sign. Lol
As if.

What's your opinion?

I think that the committee should not consider changing the name of the recipient of the medals. It was won as Bruce Jenner, a man and should remain so. Changing the name or canceling the medals is like changing history just for the whims of entertainment.

I agree with that professor transgender folk are just confused.

TV01:
Sholly 0!
You have catalogued lots of sin, but nothing illegal - or beyond the pale liberally speaking - are you now born-again !
TV
^{...and in some ways this comes across as a race-tinged hate-rant}

I have no problem with transgenders, but I have a problem with how the media is handling the story. Caitlyn Jenner is NOT a hero!

EnlightenedSoul:
Waa iska fiicanahay How'd that go for you? Well, I hope.

Hmm, how bad is it? Like, what's the likelihood you know someone?

I hope so too. I'm getting my results in around 2 weeks.

LOL @ how bad is it. I'm heard rumours here and there but thank god I don't know someone who rapes animals. The changes of me knowing one are pretty slim. It would have been a different story if I was from the south though lol.

ArtanK:
I hope so too. I'm getting my results in around 2 weeks.

LOL @ how bad is it. I'm heard rumours here and there but thank god I don't know someone who rapes animals. The changes of me knowing one are pretty slim. It would have been a different story if I was from the south though lol.

Ahh, that's nerve-wracking, I know. I'm sure you did gr8! I've been dealing with my own 'wrack' of nerves pretty much since they opened enrollment in April on a program I'm hoping to get into. Wracks and wracks...life is.

*Exhales* Well, that's good. What's up with the south tho? Lemme guess, farm land maybe? Tsk.

Shollypopzz:
I have no problem with transgenders, but I have a problem with how the media is handling the story. Caitlyn Jenner is NOT a hero!

He may've come out sooner had he led a more private life. He's been in the public eye for so long.

EnlightenedSoul:
Ahh, that's nerve-wracking, I know. I'm sure you did gr8! I've been dealing with my own 'wrack' of nerves pretty much since they opened enrollment in April on a program I'm hoping to get into. Wracks and wracks...life is.

*Exhales* Well, that's good. What's up with the south tho? Lemme guess, farm land maybe? Tsk.

Thanks walal. I pray that you get in

Germany is covered in farm land. We just make fun of southerners, they're our conservative lederhosen-wearing hillbillies lol.

ArtanK:
Thanks walal. I pray that you get in

Germany is covered in farm land. We just make fun of southerners, they're our conservative lederhosen-wearing hillbillies lol.

Thank you Happy Ramadan btw.

I've this new Serbian associate that was telling me her life's story. She told me she was forced to relocate to Germany back when former Yugoslavia imploded, and said the Germans in the area she lived - Bayern, I think - were cold towards immigrants "unlike warm Americans" (her words). She's a brunette and very European-looking so I was a bit surprised, at which point she clarified that they didn't like non-Germans period. Are those your conservative 'lederhosen'-wearing brethren? I'd look it up, but I can't be bothered

Comments?

A honest appraisal of the challenges faced by the modern woman

Bolded mine
Note this is from a perspective where husbands were very involved in the home front


cc: Shollypopzz, EnlightenedSoul, Kimoni

If feminism set women free, why do we feel more pressure than ever?
Ex-Cosmopolitan editor LINDA KELSEY fought for equality. Now she believes it's got a very dark side
By Linda Kelsey for the Daily Mail
Published: 00:42 GMT, 19 June 2015 | Updated: 07:31 GMT, 19 June 2015



Last month, at a wedding, I got talking to an attractive woman in her early 40s. She had her own business, two lovely young children and a husband who, she said, saw parenting very much as a joint venture.
Yet when she discovered I was the former editor of Cosmopolitan, she raised her eyebrows and, no doubt fuelled by the free-flowing Prosecco, declared, referring to the mantra invented by my former magazine: ‘Having it all, eh? I’ve “got it all”! So can you tell me why I feel so stressed and self-critical, and that I’m not getting anything right the whole time?’
Her words gave me a jolt. Because, 20 years ago, when I was in my early 40s, this could have been me. I was running a glossy magazine, my son was seven — and I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.


Large numbers of today’s educated, middle-class women are more stressed, more prone to depression and drinking more than ever before
Yet, back then, I would never have admitted that life was anything other than ‘just fine’. My anxiety was tightly reined in.
I kidded myself, and everyone around me, that I was on top of things; that life was hunky-dory fabulous — which in some ways it was.
But I was ever-more anxious and panicky, and so wound up that I could have snapped at any time. Had I acknowledged the truth, I would have seen that I was placing myself under intolerable pressure, and that there was a dark side to the equality which I and my feminist contemporaries had fought so hard for.

But it would have been a Judas-kiss to the cause of feminism; an act of treachery to the belief system I had not only adopted wholesale but had actively promoted through my work. If there was a downside to the so-called liberation of women, I couldn’t, or wouldn’t, admit to it.
Even when, at 43, I suffered what became a two-year bout of clinical depression and had no choice but to resign, I never once blamed equality for the pressures of trying to do it all. I took the failure — because failure was how I saw it — as a sign of my own personal weakness.

Like Superwoman author Shirley Conran, I knew life was too short to stuff a mushroom — but I’d still be sautéeing them for supper after a day’s work, rather than ordering pizza, in my efforts to be the best wife and mother I could be.
I’d race home from work, fling my coat on the floor, cook a meal, then play with my darling son until bedtime. And to prove to my boss that I could do everything he feared working mums couldn’t, I’d sometimes still be schedule-planning at 3 am.
But I never countenanced the argument that my predicament might be feminism’s fault. Surely not? The weakness was mine and mine alone.
I couldn’t hack it, yet plenty of other women could. They were achieving this Holy Grail all around me — or, at least, that’s how it seemed.
After her outburst at the wedding reception, the woman immediately apologised. ‘I’m not supposed to say that, am I?’ she said.
‘I don’t talk like this to my friends. I have to believe it will turn out all right. That my lack of libido won’t drive my husband away. That my children won’t grow up and think I’ve been a terrible mother. That my business won’t collapse.’

So she, too, was reining it in. Perhaps it’s time to face some uncomfortable truths, to save another generation of women from falling into the same trap.
Experts suggest modern women experience higher levels of stress because of the demands of having to conform to their social
Large numbers of today’s educated, middle-class women are more stressed, more prone to depression and drinking more than ever before. They are leaving it too late to settle down and have children, and ending up alone — and lonely.
Lifestyle changes that are concomitant with equality, and which women like me once welcomed, are taking a toll that seems to grow greater by the year.

Take drinking. The right to binge-drink to oblivion was never on my basic list of demands for equality. But I remember when wine bars were popping up back in the 1970s, and I celebrated that, at last, women could drink away from the hostile, male-dominated pub scene.
I even ventured into a wine bar on my own occasionally and felt quite comfortable having a solo, fortifying glass of vino after work.
What I failed to envisage was that the lifting of the taboo against female drinking in public (and at home, of course, thanks to the ready availability of supermarket wine) would lead to high-achieving women ‘catching up with men’ in such a worrying way. That soon, women wouldn’t be consuming just a glass or two on a night out (or indeed in), but quite likely a bottle or two.
The statistics are terrifying. Women in Britain are now twice as likely to have a drink problem if they have a good education. What’s more, we are the worst country in the world for heavy drinking among professional women.

Mandie Holgate, a 41-year-old business coach and mother-of-two, understands this pressure only too well. Until 2013, she was earning as much as £1,000 a day as a business development director in the City — but it came at a price.
‘A career in the City is still very much a male domain, and as a woman, I felt under pressure to work even harder to prove my mettle — and not just during office hours either,’ says Mandie, who lives with husband Andy, 42, a petrochemical engineer, and their children Harrison, 14, and Sophie, 11, in Mersea Island, Essex.
‘To succeed, you must be willing to play hard in the evenings, too, because many a lucrative business relationship is formed over dinner or a glass of bubbly. When you get to know potential clients and associates socially, relationships and trust are formed, and that leads to doing business.
‘But so many times, I’d be sitting in a swanky champagne bar, glass in hand, feeling weighed down with guilt that I hadn’t been there that evening to collect my children from school, cook their dinner and say goodnight.’
Mandie was tipped over the edge in 2011 when she suffered months of ill-health that felt ‘like a permanent hangover’. She resigned in 2013 after being admitted to hospital and diagnosed with an auto-immune disease. She is now working freelance as a consultant.
‘I put it all down to the pressures of my career, and trying — but failing — to balance it with family life,’ she says. ‘After all, by the time a woman arrives at her desk in a morning, she will have put on a washload, organised packed lunches for her children and prepared the evening meal.
Twenty years ago, Linda Kelsey was running a glossy magazine, had a seven-year-old son and was on the verge of a nervous breakdown

‘Although overall I’m happier now, I’ve taken a huge cut in earnings and my health still isn’t great.
‘Yet I miss my old career and it’s difficult to quell the desire to work hard. But I’m resigned to being content with the freedom of working for myself, doing as little or as much consultancy work as I want to.’
Mandie’s situation will be familiar to an army of women juggling full-time careers with children and a husband. Is it any wonder that in any given year, women appear to experience higher overall rates of psychological disorders than men?
Of course, it may be that men are less willing than women to come clean about their problems.

But Daniel Freeman PhD and Jason Freeman, authors of The Stressed Sex, suggest that modern women experience higher levels of stress because of the demands of having to conform to their social role. They are increasingly expected to function as carer, homemaker and breadwinner — all while being perfectly shaped and impeccably dressed.
Emma Sharpe, 40, a deputy headteacher in a secondary school who has two children aged nine and seven, admits she is hugely resentful of the frantic juggling act she has to perform daily. So much so that it almost cost her her marriage to Charles, who is also 40 and a director in the hospitality industry.
‘For years, I’ve earned more than Charles, and four years ago we separated for several months because I felt — and still feel — hugely put-upon. Even as the main breadwinner, everything else still falls to me.
‘Yes, my husband works 60 hours a week, and with two incomes we are able to afford lovely holidays and treats for the children. But I’m the one who enrols the kids in clubs and makes sure they brush their teeth and practise their reading.

‘It’s me who’s a parent governor at their school and who organises everything from dental appointments to flights and holidays.
‘Meanwhile, Charles, although very hands-on with the children when he’s at home, doesn’t have to cope with much more than his career.’
Yet Emma is the first to admit that much of her resentment is of her own making.
‘The problem, I believe, is that you can’t over-ride the inbuilt instincts in men to be the protectors and providers, while women — however career-minded they are — are still natural nurturers and nest-builders,’ she says.
‘So, even though I’m exhausted, I know it’s because I’m a martyr; that I’m the one who wants to be seen to be doing it all. I suppose I just need my efforts to be appreciated and acknowledged.
‘Ultimately, like millions of women, I felt that, despite flogging myself half to death, I was failing at everything and was weighed down with guilt.’


While there’s much to celebrate in terms of women’s achievements, the price paid for equality is rising exponentially.
When, last week, consultant gynaecologist Professor Geeta Nargund reasonably pointed out that the cost to the NHS of IVF treatments is soaring, and that age-related infertility is on the increase, there were social media mutterings that she was scaremongering, and piling the pressure on young women to have babies before they were ready.
But the brutal truth can’t simply be wished away. I don’t think women are ignorant of the biological clock, but I do think they bury their head in the sand about it.
Putting commitment on hold to concentrate on your career, as well as to experience multiple relationships before settling down, has liberated women from the shackles of economic dependence and enriched their lives socially and sexually.
And, of course, for some women, Mr Right comes along in their mid‑30s at the moment they’re ready to commit and there’s a happy-ever-after ending. But a growing number of women are finding themselves alone and unhappy.
Women are now trying to juggle a career and being a mother - and many are on the verge of cracking

Overrated? Essential? Women respond to the word 'feminism' A successful solicitor I know, who had a last-ditch baby at 40 after deliberately getting pregnant by a man she had no intention of settling down with, asked me, in all sincerity, why no one of my generation had told her that by focusing so intently on her work and relegating her love life to second place, she would end up without a partner.
I was shocked by her naivety. I would have thought it would have been obvious to this Oxford-educated woman that putting the search for love at the bottom of the to-do list was a risky business.
But she was setting the blame firmly at the feet of us so-called second-wave feminists for not telling her the pitfalls of putting career and independence first.
So did we feminists get anything right?
One thing I was pretty certain about, until recently, was that my generation of successful career women had been wise when it came to marriage — choosing partners who were happy to share their lives with a powerful woman and were willing to pitch in on parenting and domestic chores.
So it struck me with the force of a truck when five high-flying career women in my social circle were abandoned in their mid-to-late-50s by their partners of 25-plus years.

All had grown-up children, all were the principal breadwinners, and in four out of five cases the men left for younger and far less ambitious women. I reckon they thought that the wives they left would be just fine without them; that they’d tough it out.
But each of the women was devastated. And even though they’ve all gone on to remake their lives, they remain convinced that their former partners ultimately felt diminished by their superior earning power and strong opinions.
My marriage broke down around the same time. I was 56 and my son 19. My husband, who had always supported me in my career, made the remark: ‘After your breakdown, you became tougher. I think it was good for you to toughen up, but it wasn’t good for me.’
He packed his bag around the same time as my son left home, leaving me alone.
Only last week, a study of 2,750 young married people, conducted by the University of Connecticut, reported that men who are the most financially dependent on their wives are the most likely to be unfaithful.

‘Engaging in infidelity may be a way of re-establishing threatened masculinity,’ said Professor Christin Munsch, the lead researcher.
Perhaps the real dark side of equality is that, 40 years on from the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, women are experiencing all these downsides to their new status, while still suffering from practical discrimination on a daily basis.
Mandie Holgate, the mother who quit her City job for a freelance role, says: ‘Equality remains dubious. I discovered recently that I have been paid 30 per cent less by one company than a male consultant doing exactly the same job.’
You could call it a work in progress, but unless we acknowledge the impacts of change on our physical and mental health and relationships, rather than dismissing them as scaremongering and anti-feminist, women will continue to pay a very high price indeed for so-called equality.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3130768/If-feminism-set-women-free-feel-pressure-Ex-Cosmopolitan-editor-LINDA-KELSEY-fought-equality-believes-s-got-dark-side.html#ixzz3dVDZ4lsO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

pickabeau1:
Comments?

A honest appraisal of the challenges faced by the modern woman

Bolded mine
Note this is from a perspective where husbands were very involved in the home front


cc: Shollypopzz, EnlightenedSoul, Kimoni

Do you want to discuss the article or are you hoping the article will help confirm your mindset and aid your anti-feminist agenda??

First of all, the person that wrote that article is less than smart and very good at drawing ill-thought out conclusions.

What she listed as the dark-side of feminism has nothing to do with feminism but the need for women to DO IT ALL. You mention their husbands were involved in the home front, but how involved were they?? Or are saying working fathers don't feel guilt too??

She said and I quote, "....were willing to pitch in on parenting and domestic chores." While mentioning that most of these women she spoke to were breadwinners. "Even as the main breadwinner, everything else still falls to me"; "They are increasingly expected to function as carer, homemaker and breadwinner — all while being perfectly shaped and impeccably dressed."


Do me a favor, (the article is very long and there is so much to address) put in bullet points key issues you want addressed and let's address it one at a time.

HAHA.. mindset...

I just want us to look at the article..

These are the key thrusts of the article


- Large numbers of today’s educated, middle-class women are more stressed, more prone to depression and drinking more than ever before
- Equality of child care responsibilities which still seems to be more on the woman somewhat
- Preponderance of late marriages and start of parenting
- Increase in midlife (20 plus years) divorces

Shollypopzz:
Do you want to discuss the article or are you hoping the article will help confirm your mindset and aid your anti-feminist agenda??

First of all, the person that wrote that article is less than smart and very good at drawing ill-thought out conclusions.

What she listed as the dark-side of feminism has nothing to do with feminism but the need for women to DO IT ALL. You mention their husbands were involved in the home front, but how involved were they?? Or are saying working fathers don't feel guilt too??

She said and I quote, "....were willing to pitch in on parenting and domestic chores." While mentioning that most of these women she spoke to were breadwinners. "Even as the main breadwinner, everything else still falls to me"; "They are increasingly expected to function as carer, homemaker and breadwinner — all while being perfectly shaped and impeccably dressed."


Do me a favor, (the article is very long and there is so much to address) put in bullet points key issues you want addressed and let's address it one at a time.

@bold can be said to be a direct consequence of stressful work life and home life.

And this is feminisms' fault because?

Are non-feminists essentially women who are content to be idle and not experience the stress of achievement?

People deal with stress differently.
If someone turns to drink for relief, blame their ignorance.

pickabeau1:
HAHA.. mindset...

I just want us to look at the article..

These are the key thrusts of the article


- Large numbers of today’s educated, middle-class women are more stressed, more prone to depression and drinking more than ever before
- Equality of child care responsibilities which still seems to be more on the woman somewhat
- Preponderance of late marriages and start of parenting
- Increase in midlife (20 plus years) divorces

cococandy:
@bold can be said to be a direct consequence of stressful work life and home life.

And this is feminisms' fault because?

Are non-feminists essentially women who are content to be idle and not experience the stress of achievement?

People deal with stress differently.
If someone turns to drink for relief, blame their ignorance.

Ok

pickabeau: Large numbers of today’s educated, middle-class women are more stressed, more prone to depression and drinking more than ever before

Feminism is not the reason why these women are stressed or prone to depression. If it were, then it should also be blamed for stay-at-home moms who are more likely to be depressed than working mothers according to research. (Go online, there are articles everywhere concerning great amount of stay at home moms suffering from depression).

Feminism is not putting pressure on anyone. The only thing feminism does, is give you a choice. Because of feminism, a woman that would rather work than stay at home, can now do so, A woman can now get educated in any field of her choice.
The problem is the societal standards and the time most of these women grew up. Most of the women in this article grew up when women advancement was still a little behind from where we are now. They grew up with mothers and fathers who took on stereotypical gender roles and were trained to fit in the roles that society has set out for them.

These women are stressed because they are trying to satisfy themselves and at the same time satisfy society. Today's society still does NOT embrace a stay-at-home dad or a woman that focuses on providing. They want to have amazing careers but also be award winning moms at the same bloody time. This two can NEVER be achieved at once without negatively affecting the woman.
According to one of the women in the article (Shirley Conran), "I’d race home from work, fling my coat on the floor, cook a meal, then play with my darling son until bedtime. And to prove to my boss that I could do everything he feared working mums couldn’t, I’d sometimes still be schedule-planning at 3 am".

Where is her "involved" husband in all this?? Most men also cannot handle excellent careers and home at the same time just like women but the difference is, they are not under any pressure to be physically involved in their child's life. They are fine with "pitching in" and would not stress if they are not "pitching in" enough.


This is how fvcked up patriarchal society is - because women asked for the same rights as men, they are asked to take on both roles. All the women in this article were breadwinners, meaning sole providers. Why the hell were their husbands not putting in more work at home than they were?? Why do they excuse this?? This is what I call mental slavery. Not once, did these women demand more form their husbands, instead they blamed themselves for not being a superhuman.

The pressure to be fantastic at both, comes from women trying to prove a point that they are just as intelligent and resourceful as their male colleagues while trying to please the society.
The thing is, why do we even have to prove that we are just as intelligent and we can be useful in a corporate environment?? Because of years of oppression and being seen as inferior, we dare not allow ourselves to take days off work. And instead of her to blame the patriarchal and oppressive society, she wants to blame feminism.

This is identical to African Americans in the ghetto blaming civil rights activists for their problems. And maintaining that they were better off as slaves because at least, they had a job.

Like Superwoman author Shirley Conran, I knew life was too short to stuff a mushroom — but I’d still be sautéeing them for supper after a day’s work, rather than ordering pizza, in my efforts to be the best wife and mother I could be.
I’d race home from work, fling my coat on the floor, cook a meal, then play with my darling son until bedtime. And to prove to my boss that I could do everything he feared working mums couldn’t, I'd still be schedule-planning at 3 am.
But I never countenanced the argument that my predicament might be feminism’s my fault. Surely not? The weakness was mine and mine alone.
I couldn’t hack it, yet plenty of other women could. They were achieving this Holy Grail all around me — or, at least, that’s how it seemed.

This section of the article pretty much answers all your burning questions, pickabeau. Though, I must say I find it funny that towards the end she blames her own decisions on feminism. She does most everything, constantly compares herself to others, doesn't know when/how to say 'NO!', and refuses to cut herself any slack whatsoever - like she's some kind of Superwoman. Newsflash! She isn't.

pickabeau1:
HAHA.. mindset...
- Equality of child care responsibilities which still seems to be more on the woman somewhat

This is true, the problem is we differ in the WHY.

You think women are biologically or naturally predisposed to be better care-givers than males. This is where I disagree.

I don't think it has anything to do with biology, I think it has everything to do with gender roles and the society's need to dismiss individuality. There is no organ in my body that makes me better at care giving.
This is as a result of mind-fvcking, as I like to call it. At a young age, let's say the age of 2, when I started to study my environment, the people in place of care-giving were women. If I go to kindergarten, women. Nursing nko, majority were women.
To the point that a male nurse is seen as gay, weird or downright absurd.

You know what trips me about the nursing thing, The fact that doctors, psychologists, and life-coaches are also in the field of care-giving, but guess what?? Majority are males. It's like as long as women are not in the position of leadership, the society does not give a fvck.

We are trained to see and act according to the society's definition of a woman. I have no experience in raising babies, yet if I become a mother tomorrow, people expect me to learn. If my boyfriend becomes a father tomorrow, nobody expects him to learn anything about bathing a baby or whatever it entails. The pressure is on me to learn.

We can always trace this to a time in society where physical strength determined your status in the society and it was all about the survival of the fittest.

Shollypopzz:
Feminism is not the reason why these women are stressed or prone to depression. If it were, then it should also be blamed for stay-at-home moms who are more likely to be depressed than working mothers according to research. (Go online, there are articles everywhere concerning great amount of stay at home moms suffering from depression).

Feminism is not putting pressure on anyone. The only thing feminism does, is give you a choice. Because of feminism, a woman that would rather work than stay at home, can now do so, A woman can now get educated in any field of her choice.
The problem is the societal standards and the time most of these women grew up. Most of the women in this article grew up when women advancement was still a little behind from where we are now. They grew up with mothers and fathers who took on stereotypical gender roles and were trained to fit in the roles that society has set out for them.

Ok
So are these roles still relevant today

These women are stressed because they are trying to satisfy themselves and at the same time satisfy society. Today's society still does NOT embrace a stay-at-home dad or a woman that focuses on providing. They want to have amazing careers but also be award winning moms at the same bloody time. This two can NEVER be achieved at once without negatively affecting the woman.
According to one of the women in the article (Shirley Conran), "I’d race home from work, fling my coat on the floor, cook a meal, then play with my darling son until bedtime. And to prove to my boss that I could do everything he feared working mums couldn’t, I’d sometimes still be schedule-planning at 3 am".

Where is her "involved" husband in all this?? Most men also cannot handle excellent careers and home at the same time just like women but the difference is, they are not under any pressure to be physically involved in their child's life. They are fine with "pitching in" and would not stress if they are not "pitching in" enough.

So what do you propose

This is how fvcked up patriarchal society is - because women asked for the same rights as men, they are asked to take on both roles. All the women in this article were breadwinners, meaning sole providers. Why the hell were their husbands not putting in more work at home than they were?? Why do they excuse this?? This is what I call mental slavery. Not once, did these women demand more form their husbands, instead they blamed themselves for not being a superhuman.

main breadwinner and sole are different

The pressure to be fantastic at both, comes from women trying to prove a point that they are just as intelligent and resourceful as their male colleagues while trying to please the society.
The thing is, why do we even have to prove that we are just as intelligent and we can be useful in a corporate environment?? Because of years of oppression and being seen as inferior, we dare not allow ourselves to take days off work. And instead of her to blame the patriarchal and oppressive society, she wants to blame feminism.

This is identical to African Americans in the ghetto blaming civil rights activists for their problems. And maintaining that they were better off as slaves because at least, they had a job.

If u are asking what is the point of women being intelligent or useful in a corporate world, is that not causing more damage to the efforts women have done

We have the former CEO of HP, Pepsico amd Yahoo being women

Why do u think women should take foot off the gas

Well care giving and nurturing a child are two different facets of care

The woman is biologically suited to this task due to the anatomy as feeding is a basic instinct

Of course with pumps, this is better now


So what do you propose

Shollypopzz:
This is true, the problem is we differ in the WHY.

You think women are biologically or naturally predisposed to be better care-givers than males. This is where I disagree.

I don't think it has anything to do with biology, I think it has everything to do with gender roles and the society's need to dismiss individuality. There is no organ in my body that makes me better at care giving.
This is as a result of mind-fvcking, as I like to call it. At a young age, let's say the age of 2, when I started to study my environment, the people in place of care-giving were women. If I go to kindergarten, women. Nursing nko, majority were women.
To the point that a male nurse is seen as gay, weird or downright absurd.

You know what trips me about the nursing thing, The fact that doctors, psychologists, and life-coaches are also in the field of care-giving, but guess what?? Majority are males. It's like as long as women are not in the position of leadership, the society does not give a fvck.

We are trained to see and act according to the society's definition of a woman. I have no experience in raising babies, yet if I become a mother tomorrow, people expect me to learn. If my boyfriend becomes a father tomorrow, nobody expects him to learn anything about bathing a baby or whatever it entails. The pressure is on me to learn.

We can always trace this to a time in society where physical strength determined your status in the society and it was all about the survival of the fittest.

I agree with you..some bad choices were made putting so much stress on herself
The question is why this stress compared to her mothers generation

EnlightenedSoul:
This section of the article pretty much answers all your burning questions, pickabeau. Though, I must say I find it funny that towards the end she blames her own decisions on feminism. She does most everything, constantly compares herself to others, doesn't know when/how to say 'NO!', and refuses to cut herself any slack whatsoever - like she's some kind of Superwoman. Newsflash! She isn't.

pickabeau1:
So are these roles still relevant today

eerrrm.....Aren't we living in a patriarchal society??

So what do you propose

There is no one solution because different couples would have their own way of coping. My only proposal is that these women should stop trying to please the society and do things that make them happy.

main breadwinner and sole are different

OK.

If u are asking what is the point of women being intelligent or useful in a corporate world, is that not causing more damage to the efforts women have done

We have the former CEO of HP, Pepsico amd Yahoo being women

Why do u think women should take foot off the gas.

What??! I am complaining that we have to prove anything in the first place. Men do not have to prove sh1t, so why are we forced to prove that we are just as intelligent?? Read my post again. I am saying we have to work harder than our male counterparts, to even be recognized for our work.

MY POST: The pressure to be fantastic at both, comes from women trying to prove a point that they are just as intelligent and resourceful as their male colleagues while trying to please the society.
The thing is, why do we even have to prove that we are just as intelligent and we can be useful in a corporate environment?? Because of years of oppression and being seen as inferior, we dare not allow ourselves to take days off work. And instead of her to blame the patriarchal and oppressive society, she wants to blame feminism.

This is identical to African Americans in the ghetto blaming civil rights activists for their problems. And maintaining that they were better off as slaves because at least, they had a job.

pickabeau1:
I agree with you..some bad choices were made putting so much stress on herself
The question is why this stress compared to her mothers generation

You can't see how aiming to be superwoman on three fronts is bound to carry more stress - especially with such high self-imposed expectations - than being superwoman in one area, if that?

Shollypopzz:

Feminism is not the reason why these women are stressed or prone to depression. If it were, then it should also be blamed for stay-at-home moms who are more likely to be depressed than working mothers according to research. (Go online, there are articles everywhere concerning great amount of stay at home moms suffering from depression).

Feminism is not putting pressure on anyone. The only thing feminism does, is give you a [b]choice. Because of feminism, a woman that would rather work than stay at home, can now do so, A woman can now get educated in any field of her choice.
The problem is the societal standards and the time most of these women grew up. Most of the women in this article grew up when women advancement was still a little behind from where we are now. They grew up with mothers and fathers who took on stereotypical gender roles and were trained to fit in the roles that society has set out for them.

These women are stressed because they are trying to satisfy themselves and at the same time satisfy society. Today's society still does NOT embrace a stay-at-home dad or a woman that focuses on providing. They want to have amazing careers but also be award winning moms at the same bloody time. This two can NEVER be achieved at once without negatively affecting the woman.
According to one of the women in the article (Shirley Conran), "I’d race home from work, fling my coat on the floor, cook a meal, then play with my darling son until bedtime. And to prove to my boss that I could do everything he feared working mums couldn’t, I’d sometimes still be schedule-planning at 3 am".

Where is her "involved" husband in all this?? Most men also cannot handle excellent careers and home at the same time just like women but the difference is, they are not under any pressure to be physically involved in their child's life. They are fine with "pitching in" and would not stress if they are not "pitching in" enough.


This is how fvcked up patriarchal society is - because women asked for the same rights as men, they are asked to take on both roles. All the women in this article were breadwinners, meaning sole providers. Why the hell were their husbands not putting in more work at home than they were?? Why do they excuse this?? This is what I call mental slavery. Not once, did these women demand more form their husbands, instead they blamed themselves for not being a superhuman.

The pressure to be fantastic at both, comes from women trying to prove a point that they are just as intelligent and resourceful as their male colleagues while trying to please the society.
The thing is, why do we even have to prove that we are just as intelligent and we can be useful in a corporate environment?? Because of years of oppression and being seen as inferior, we dare not allow ourselves to take days off work. And instead of her to blame the patriarchal and oppressive society, she wants to blame feminism.

This is identical to African Americans in the ghetto blaming civil rights activists for their problems. And maintaining that they were better off as slaves because at least, they had a job[/b].

Succinct

EnlightenedSoul:
You can't see how aiming to be superwoman on three fronts is bound to carry more stress - especially with such high self-imposed expectations - than being superwoman in one area, if that?

So what do you propose..
Focus on one area?

pickabeau1:
- Preponderance of late marriages and start of parenting

What do you consider as late marriage or early marriage?? That is, If they plan on breeding immediately.

What do you think is the right age for men and women to get married and why??

Shollypopzz:
What do you consider as late marriage or early marriage?? That is, If they plan on breeding immediately.

What do you think is the right age for men and women to get married and why??

women marrying after 35

right age for marriage?
the word right is not the best but anything from ,30 for guys and 27 for women is ok

this allows for them to have a steady financial base

cococandy:
@bold can be said to be a direct consequence of stressful work life and home life.

And this is feminisms' fault because?

Are non-feminists essentially women who are content to be idle and not experience the stress of achievement?

People deal with stress differently.
If someone turns to drink for relief, blame their ignorance.

Are all these stressed women feminists

Funny article.

So feminism caused higher stress lives?

Please call me when it decreases life span.