Meltdowns are a good thing

[braziliansnoopy]

So for those of you who are "fortunate" enough to read my post-protected melodramatic foolishness may care to know that it's all good. Every so often, I need an emotional release. It's very cathartic. Are the problems and issues gone? No, but I'm calmer, rational, and know that I can do something about most of my issues. A lot of it is a mindset,

Comments

[pwiggily]

That's interesting because most guys I know are attracted to women with a snappy comeback up her sleeve. Maybe I just know weird guys. Or maybe I just don't associate with idiots. Either way works for me.

[braziliansnoopy]

I think guys in general are weird. After writing this last night I was thinking about it and decided that this is why Lucy never gets Schroeder.

[pwiggily]

Uh, I think Lucy didn't get Schroeder because she was a manipulative bitch who liked to taunt dome-headed kids with footballs.

[braziliansnoopy]

Phooey. I am Lucy! Though I'm not much of a Schroeder girl.

[pensivebard]

Well I can't speak for all men, but I can certainly say that your wit and sarcasm are the most attractive parts of you that *I* see. Then again, I have a tendency of dating b*tches. *chuckles* Take that one wherever you want to. haha

[braziliansnoopy]

Well, that was more of a response than I was expecting. Nothing is as straightforward as it seems. On a personal level, this was just an interesting experience because of the timin of my friend's comment and when I read the excerpt. And I stand by what I said, because that's directed at the guys actually find me intimidating (which is really the stupidest thing I've ever heard about myself

[pensivebard]

I think the whole "women earning less" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I am not saying that there still aren't some vestiges of discrimination within the system, but I think a lot of those figures have to do with one fact... motherhood. There comes a point in the development of a family where children come into the equation... and let's face it, women are by the very physical attachment of their sexuality more intrinsically involved in the whole child-bearing process. On top of that, women are (from a stereotypical sense) more "attuned" to the nature of child rearing by their "nurturer nature".

It could be lobbied that such statements are sexist, and that they pigeonhole women into a subservient role that demeans their ability in the workplace by offering them a carrot in the form of "but you make a better parent". Personally, I feel that the family is the core foundation of the evolution of our society, and as such the role of a parent is the most important role one can ever bear. Money, possessions, fame... they

*jumps on soapbox*

[braziliansnoopy]

So I look at this "equality gap" in the workplace, and a part of me actually WORRIES as it closes... because for every step we take towards closing the bridge of sexual inequality in the workplace, I fear we step two steps further away from the true wealth of our lives. Our children.

I agree with that to an extent. Just because women close in on men as far as equality goes, can't it become a balance - just as many men as women staying at home. To me I think that that is the issue. Obviously, I'm generalizing here, but when it comes time to have children it's women who more often than not are put in the position where they have to be the ones sacrificing their career. Even in a democratic relationship where both the man and women examine the pros and cons of who stays home/works less vs. who is the breadwinner, the breadwinner is who has the bigger paycheck. Who is that most likely to be? The guy.

And while I do acknowledge and somewhat agree with your point that women are more "attuned" to the nature of child rearing by their "