This is what he does. This is how he avoids confronting the fact that he is completely, unequivocally, without question, wrong. He is constitutionally incapable of entertaining the merest possibility of his world view being cockeyed. The only way for him to continue the charade in his head is to ignore evidence. Otherwise he would have to come to grips with the stark reality that he is wrong.
Two things about this are shocking to me:
One, that you really do seem to think that you’re describing a positive scenario.
Two, that you can’t understand that arbitrarily limiting women’s choices is, in fact, oppressive.
Ah, well. A lesson is learned but the damage, I suppose, is irreversible.
That’s what’s insane about it, isn’t it. That’s the defense. It’s like positioning slavery as free food and shelter in exchange for job security.
I’m not describing it as a positive sceario. I’m describing as simply the way it was, based on hundreds of years of societal evolution. Men were on the hook to provide for everybody in their family, and since they earned the money, they held the property. And since they earned the money and held the property, they were responsible for the family’s debts, including checks the wife wrote. This is why the husband’s permission was needed for women to have checking accounts.
In case you haven’t noticed, it’s a common leftie tactic to whip up hatred against its enemies in order to gain support for its causes. Men did not set things up the way they were in order to oppress women and hold them down, and by and large, earning the money necessary to support their families was stressful and burdensome. But to hear 70’s-era feminists tell it, men were out galavanting around, having a great old time at the office, enjoying their three-hour, three-martini lunches and raking in the dough, meanwhile deliberately oppressing and taking advantage of women and denying them their rights. And the problem was, lots of college-agitated 18-to-22-year-old girls bought into that fantasy and it created a lot of hatred and conflict between the sexes…and people are still buying that nonsensical and deliberately aggitating fantasy today.
It wasn’t about limiting women’s choices; it was about who bore the financial burden…i.e., who was on the hook to pay the bills and the checks that were written. As long as a woman had her own property and/or was single and provided her own income, she could get credit and open checking and saving accounts.
And now I have to ask if nobody thinks the way this thread is going isn’t rather ridiculous. On the one hand, in comparing pre-counterculture American society with today’s, and listing millions of lives lost and ruined due to drugs and their associated crime; runaway rates of STD’s and ever-lowering ages of child sexual activity; a hosed up educational system that seems incapable of doing its job; a revolving-door prison system whose parolees have robbed, raped and murdered an untold number of people; and millions of kids being brought up in single-parent homes with little to no adult supervision and likely doomed to lives of crime or poverty…your response is: “Well, yeah, but at least now we don’t have to drive out of state to get divorced and…Oh, hey! Look at my shiny new checkbook!”
I hope you’ll forgive me if I say I don’t think the trade-off is worth it.
Did everyone get a pony that poops skittles in your imaginary past world?
Priceless!
Awesome.
Oh, bullshit. A married woman could NOT get her own credit and checking and savings accounts, even if SHE was the one who had a steady income, while her husband was unemployed. She had to have her husband’s permission to open those accounts, even though SHE was the one who was making sure that the family was fed, clothed, and sheltered.
And the reason for laws that allowed this was that women were considered to be less intelligent and less financially savvy than men were. The laws were put in place precisely in order to protect women, which limited women’s choices.
No, I don’t forgive you. I am very well aware that if I hadn’t been fortunate enough to live in these times, MY choices would be much more limited…and I know that if you had your way, that you would limit my choices, and the choices of my daughter, and all other women, again. I DO think the trade off is worth it. I would rather have my freedom than any protection that is given to me for my own good. But wait, isn’t that the Republican argument in many cases? That freedom is better than government protections?
Kindly point to where large numbers of conservatives all across the country ever:
[ul]Took over and trashed college administration buildings?[/ul]
[ul]Held rallies and burned documents or articles of clothing?[/ul]
[ul]Rioted at a political convention?[/ul]
[ul]Gathered in groups to shout "Fuck you, RFD (or JFK or JEC or…well, you get the idea)…?[/ul]
[ul]Claimed that women hated men and were out to fuck them over?[/ul]
[ul]Created sit-coms making fun of liberals and turning them into objects of hate and derision?[/ul]
[ul]Claimed that you were evil and selfish because you wouldn’t agree to their social programs?[/ul]
[ul]Claimed that evil and stupidity were necessary elements in your ideology?[/ul]
The list goes on and on. Pretty much all you guys have is conservative opposition to civil rights and gay marriage, and even then at the time when racial discrimination and disapproval of gays was commonplace, almost everyone held those views regardless off ideology. And as time changed and to your credit attitudes about blacks and gays did begin to change, large numbers of conservatives changed their attitudes as well. I’d wager that nearly even numbers of liberals and conservatives still maintain their biases today, although in both cases they are in the minority. Typically though, it’s only in cases of demonstrable conservative racism or so-called “homophobia” where we hear about it.
And what flavor of Kool-Aid was your preference?
I live in the midwest, the very heart of evil conservatism. And back in the evil forties, fifties and sixties, she was married several times…mostly to men she largely supported. She purchased and paid for a succession of large, two-story homes and rented out rooms on the top floors to help pay for the houses. She generally, through salesmanship and industriousness, either supported most of the men she wound up marrying (my grandfather notwithstanding, he died relatively young in a railroad accident) or providing the majority of the income. She bought the cars, she bought the houses, and she paid the bills. My aunt on the other side of my family was a widow. She worked her entire working life at an Air Force base and had a good income, property of her own, banking accounts and a line of credit. My stepmother’s sister in the fifties, sixties and seventies was much like my grandmother. She was a go-getter, the office manager for a large automotive parts distribution center, and largely supported and paid the bills for both of her relatively ne-er do well but likeable husbands. She made lots of money and they lived on the edge of the old-money section of town and was well thought of within that crowd. And my own stepmother maintained her checking, savings and stock in the automotive company where she also worked after she married my father. Throughout most of their marriage and up to the time my father died, she paid $200 toward their mutual expenses (starting in the early sixties) and that never changed, despite my father’s considerable success in building a business of his own and her money was in no way needed.
Anecdotal? Yes. Atypical? I don’t think so. If women wanted to, they could live lives just as free as men did. Most however opted for the staus quo, and the status quo was for men to be burdened with making the money to support the family, and the financial responsibility for the family’s debts and expenses that went along with that, and women took care of things on the home front, needing their husband’s permission in the event they were unemployed and had no income of their own, to incur debts that he would be responsible for.
It’s obvious that liberals, who rant and rail and behave as though any “insensitive” remark justifies job and career loss and almost total societal excommunication, remain utterly unmoved by the pain and suffering and lost lives that liberal permissiveness and the moral relativity they support have caused. It’s also obvious that this is a consequence of the extraordinary selfishness that is part and parcel of liberalism itself. Nothing matters so much to the liberal mind as the ability to do what you want, and consequences be damned.
In the days before I discovered this board I believed that liberals were for some reason incapable of foreseeing the consequences of the beliefs they held and the policies they instigated. Since then I’ve come to learn that they just don’t give a shit, as long as they, personally, gain in some way.
Burned down churches with little kids inside? Stalked doctors and murdered them in cold blood? Detonated truck bombs killing scores of federal workers?
Large numbers of conservatives nationwide did all that?
Or a few wacko crackpots?
ETA: It’s interesting (and telling) that in the face of all the hateful and devisive leftie bullshit I listed, this is all you can come up with by way of rebuttal.
Why should I be subject to a standard you don’t apply to yourself?
nm.
It is interesting and telling that you casually blow off murderous conservative terrorism.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I hope you realize you just described at least 90% of the people who post here.
Not blowing it off. Merely saying it isn’t part of the typical conservative mindset. Perhaps you need to be reminded of the comment that started this particular aspect of the conversation:
Random acts of violence committed by a couple dozen wackos does not equate to routine conservative political tactics, as does hatred, rage and intolerance when it comes to the left.
But be that as it may, I’m going to bow out now, lest I allow you to succeed in drawing attention away from the very excellent - if I do say so myself - posts I made above in rebuttal to spooje, **emacknight **and Lynn Bodoni. 
Run along now, you sure showed us.