Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - "Women are weak and pathetic"

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - "Women are weak and pathetic" (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/18921-women-weak-pathetic.html)

"Women are weak and pathetic"

Quote:

Women - Weak and Pathetic?

I was incensed very many years ago to find that my mother had been forced to give up a good teaching job when she married my father, in the 1930's. She was a woman who clearly needed something beyond the family to give her some interest in life. (She wasn't typical, for those days.) And she clearly suffered later by not fulfilling her potential in this respect. It annoyed me that she had been discriminated against purely and wholly on the basis of her gender, and particularly so given that she was well-known to be very good at her job as a teacher. It seemed extremely unfair.

My father explained the reasons in this way.

Within communities in those days, there was a great deal of unemployment. Indeed, there was not much in the way of 'industry'. Families were seen as economic units with responsibility for looking after themselves, and it simply wasn't tenable for one family to have two wage earners in the house while the next door neighbours had none! Such a thing would have been a recipe for social envy, disaster and violence - and, of course, in those days, there was no particularly effective welfare system to balance the imbalances.

Neither was there much of a police force; which meant that social unrest or disharmony would very quickly lead to real problems. For example, the poorer would have been able to rob those who were seemingly wealthier with impunity.

And why not? - if their families had no wage earners and very little food, while the CHILDLESS couple NEXT DOOR had TWO wage earners, food and even luxuries?!

So, the convention was that, upon marriage, either the husband or the wife had to stop work. Since the wife was very likely to have children (and, in this case, she did - me and my sister!) custom and convention dictated that she was the one who should stop working.

The overwhelming majority of women did not see this as discrimination. They saw themselves as being lucky enough to have a system which allowed just about each of them to collar a man prepared to go out and earn a living in order to support her and her children.

Further, prepared to or not, like it or not, the man was EXPECTED to do this, by the monumental social pressures that societies typically exert through tradition and custom - and, in many cases, through the law.

Indeed, as an example, in the USA, it was around this time that a young Frank Sinatra was indicted for failing in his promise to marry a young woman whom he had, allegedly, 'seduced'. He was only saved from prison when she withdrew her complaint.

Given that most women had MANY children fairly vicariously in those days, and would end up spending many years looking after them, it was also silly to invest a country's, or a family's, very limited wealth in the education of women - because they were the very ones most likely NOT to take any value from it!

Further, it was clearly best for everyone that females, when children, spent much of their time being trained for motherhood rather than being prepared for something that was very unlikely to happen - like a having a full-time 'career', or a job, of whatever sort.

Also, looking after children in those days was somewhat more time consuming, more complex an affair, and far more laborious than it is today. There were no microwave ovens, washing machines, fridges, vacuum cleaners, telephones, televisions, automatic heating systems, cars, etc.. And there was little in the way of modern materials, medicines and chemicals that we now rely on so heavily.

Cooking, cleaning, clothing and child-rearing were, therefore, major domestic industries in themselves, and preparing young girls for dealing successfully with all of these things was crucial for their well-being and their survival in the rat race.

Moreover, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, societies that did not do this were not going to succeed in the face of competition from those that did! In terms of cultural 'evolution', therefore, societies whose women did not care properly for the children, while the men laboured on their behalf, never made it!

Indeed, such societies would have disappeared very quickly - as more effective ones took over the land.

And you can see this sort of thing happening today!

For example, there are now many pockets in Britain today where women are, indeed, failing to bring up their children properly, and where the fathers are - thanks to feminism - 'not required'.

And, as a result, across the entire country, there are vast areas where young delinquents terrify the inhabitants and where criminality is the norm. And the activities of these young anti-social individuals spill out to affect the rest of British society.

These pockets of deprivation, which they have now become, all have something in common. They are places where a significant proportion of the fathers are absent or ineffective. And it doesn't take more than a handful of their dysfunctional offspring to terrorise and ruin entire neighbourhoods.

Yet they survive - but only because the rest of the country keeps injecting millions of pounds into them and because it is prepared to provide them with so many supportive services - police, health, education etc. Without this support, they would fail. Indeed, they would destroy themselves.

And this is exactly what would have happened in the past!

In fact, even now in the UK, areas have literally had to close down, so bad and uninhabitable had they become.

The best road to success in the past was for women to bring up the children - and to be trained to do so properly - while the men spent much of their time developing the environment and tapping its resources, giving just some of their time for helping out with the rearing of their own children - particularly the boys.

And it wasn't only men who enforced these 'decisions' and norms, it was WOMEN! And I saw this with my own eyes during my own early life.

Indeed, if the men had been given their way, many would have been more than happy to have their daughters and wives working out there - for money - in order to help to pay the bills. But, I repeat, it would have been a recipe for social disaster for one family to have both parents earning while their neighbours had no income at all.

Given that women were biologically chosen by nature to be the ones to bear children and nurture them, it is hardly surprising that, throughout all of History, in all other areas, they have been 'held back'. They have simply had other things to do.

And for feminists to keep blaming men for what Nature gave to women is pointless, hysterical and malicious. Indeed, if anything, the men of the past should be recognised for having devoted most of their waking hours to working (or, rather, slaving) in order to support their loved ones.

While misandric feminists like to portray men as having oppressed women by 'keeping them at home with the children', it is clear that both genders benefited hugely from the deal. The WHOLE of society did. Further, what this deceitful and gullible group of women describes as 'oppression', was, in reality, men trooping out, day in, day out, to work, sometimes in the most awful jobs imaginable, in order for their families to survive as best as they could.

And if you younger folk in any way imagine that the jobs of men, 100, 200, or even 50 years ago, were, in any way, comparable to the jobs of today, you are poorly educated indeed! They were awful - and, at the very best, utterly tedious. And the hours were long with very little in the way of good transport to convey them to work and back, and with certainly not much in the way of rights and pay.

Do feminists really believe that women would actually have preferred to do these jobs rather than stay at home with their children in the comfort of their surrounding friendly neighbourhoods?

Here's an extract from David Thomas' book Not Guilty ...

The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."

In other words, during that period, women did not like the jobs that were available, and so they opted out of them.

The men had to do them instead!

The belief that women have been oppressed throughout History is only true to the extent that EVERYONE was oppressed by somebody else. For example, for every miner who 'oppressed' his wife at home, there was another man, an employer or manager, who oppressed 100 miners in the pits. And the idea that women were the only oppressed 'victims' in all of this is ridiculous, and completely beyond belief.

One only has to look at the selfless way that men sacrificed their lives on the Titanic, where 'women and children first' was the order for escape and safety, to appreciate just how valuable the female gender was regarded by men in the recent past. This was the reality then, no matter what feminists will tell you about the 'oppression' and the 'low status' of women in those days.

Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status, then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the men escaped into the lifeboats!

The idea that women, particularly western women, have not had power throughout recent History is, of course, a feminist-inspired falsehood, and it was created mostly by emotionally-deficient women to provide further fuel for their personal campaigns of hatred against men.

Indeed, it is almost impossible to envisage a successful society - a strong one - in which women do not have considerable power.

The fact that, in the past, the women brought up the children, and, hence, the very next generation, gave them untold powers. Not only did they influence the values, beliefs and behaviours of the next generation, they also benefited hugely from the fact that their children, both sons and daughters, bonded very tightly to them, emotionally speaking. This was a tremendous 'investment' for their own futures which benefited them throughout their entire lives, well into old age and death - not only financially and emotionally, but in almost every possible way. This empowered them hugely. And the further fact that the fathers were so much engaged elsewhere, away from their families, gave the mothers at home even greater relative influence, power and advantage over the future generation. In fact, the men were often reduced to little more than slaves and wallets when it came to 'the family'.

Thus, when it comes to shaping the generations that follow, there can be no question of which gender has, and has always had, real power.

If women of the past were particularly oppressed in any way, then it was with the full complicity of the women themselves.

Indeed, there surely has never been a successful society in which women, as a whole, were treated badly.

Further, if any group had come up with something better than 'marriage' then it, whatever it was, would have been dominating our formal social arrangements by now.

Instead, the reality is that ALL other systems governing the relationships between males and females, particularly in connection with their reproductive roles - and there must have been some other systems that were tried out - have clearly failed abysmally.

They never got very far!

Not one of them turned into a strong successful society.

Not one!

Another example that is often cited as evidence for the oppression of women was the common 'inheritance' procedures, whereby the oldest son inherited the property - the land, the money, the title and the status.

But was this really oppression, given the circumstances and limitations of the recent past and beyond?

For example, what does one do when there is no enforceable, observable, common, sufficiently complex legal system to deal with matters of property - or title, such as 'King'? Well, the best route is surely the simplest one. You hand the property down to just one member of the family - the oldest one. You don't even have to choose, and so stir up hostility in the unchosen. No piece of paper is even needed to prove the deal (not that most ordinary people could have read it even if there was one). And there are no arguments over this and that. The first-born male is the solution throughout. Further, by keeping all the wealth in the hands of just one person, this ensures that the family's power base is not divided into smaller units which eventually dissipate into relative insignificance.

You only have to look at the situation in Afghanistan to see what happens when there is no definable, undisputable 'heir to the throne'. Different warloads rise up, all claiming their own legitimacy, and the country is torn apart by warring factions struggling for power.

And the women are completely disempowered in the process!

Buy why did the male rather than the female always have precedence?

The answer is that the female is weak and pathetic in comparison to the male - and this was especially so in more primitive times and places where muscles were almost as important as brains!

She also has the children to bear and to look after. Further, females will have spent much of their youth preparing for motherhood and all its ramifications. In other words, females had enough on their plates.

And what hope would there have been for any social groupings that gave the most power to those members least capable of using it effectively?

Well, they would have been rapidly outgunned by those that didn't do this. And so they would have quickly disappeared!

And so it is that, on balance, both the men and the women benefited from the custom that gave the male control of the family's wealth and power.

Indeed, even today, those groups that are still very much attached to 'the family' (such as found in many UK Asian communities) and the traditional roles contained therein, are doing exceedingly well in comparison to those where the 'family' is more loosely structured and where the men have, effectively, been disempowered. These latter groups (e.g. as found in many council estates) are failures, and they would disintegrate completely were it not for the fact that they are kept alive by tax burdens placed upon the rest of us.

In conclusion, it seems that if in any social groups from the past had handed more power to their women and less to their men, they would, quite simply, have rapidly disappeared.

Indeed.

I mostly agree with this guy, and I also like how he takes it to the feminists. Indeed, cook my dinner! (anyone notice how often he says indeed?)

*cringes*

when was this article written?? the middle ages?? somebody plz shine some light on this guy.

the guy expects women to stay home and raise children and cook while men go out and work. this is the 21th century god damn it.

there shouldnt be any set job for either sex, whoever is most efficent at a certain activity should do it (and the other should help out).

there is no way in HELL that i am gonna marry a woman that guy describes. hell no. i dont want a slave. no thanks. i see a partner as an equal to me, not somebody below me.

maybe i'm being too idealistic here, but i really think i can find a woman like that to marry.

Quote:

Further, it was clearly best for everyone that females, when children, spent much of their time being trained for motherhood rather than being prepared for something that was very unlikely to happen - like a having a full-time 'career', or a job, of whatever sort.

WTF!! that is the most absurd thing ever.

wait a sec....isnt that what the hardcore islamists do?? only boys get education, women stay in home and does daily chores (and wear burkhas).

i can see how this kinda writing would be appropriate in the 1600's or so.....but in the 21st century?? OMFG.

He says back in the day they had to stay home doing these things because the social system would collapse. He also says they prefered it.

yes, some of the stuff he is referring to is back in the day, but he clearly sounds like he would prefer it today as well.

This guy sounds like he knows what he is talking about but has no basis for the facts that he is stating. And his argument that women allowed themselves to be oppressed is laughable at the least.

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
yes, some of the stuff he is referring to is back in the day, but he clearly sounds like he would prefer it today as well.

He would, he says so when he addresses the problems in the UK, he believes that if they were brought up correctly that wouldn't have been a problem.

well, what if the dad stayed home and took care of the kids??

The article addresses that:

So, the convention was that, upon marriage, either the husband or the wife had to stop work. Since the wife was very likely to have children (and, in this case, she did - me and my sister!) custom and convention dictated that she was the one who should stop working.

The overwhelming majority of women did not see this as discrimination. They saw themselves as being lucky enough to have a system which allowed just about each of them to collar a man prepared to go out and earn a living in order to support her and her children.

That article is weak and pathetic. It has good points, but it must have been written twenty years ago by someone who was truly a product of his generation.

People. Relax. it is JUST an opinion. Picking it apart and boing offended will get you nothing but pissed off. Read. Skoff. Laugh. Shrug. Continue on.

No! I must voice my outrage!

:rolleyes: :)

Remember just because you've been exposed to ignorance doesn't mean you will become ignorant.

While I may not agree with all of it, I think it has some good points.

Let me ask you TFP'ers a question:

Do any of you *REALLY* think that it is better for children to be raised by Daycare workers or do you think it is better when a parent can stay home full time to raise them?

Re: "Women are weak and pathetic"

Quote:

But why did the male rather than the female always have precedence?

The answer is that the female is weak and pathetic in comparison to the male - and this was especially so in more primitive times and places where muscles were almost as important as brains!

Oh good god... how ignorant can a person be... this is just flame bait.

This guy has some points, but the article is so obviously biased AGAINST feminists that what points have been made are made ridiculous by his constant feminist-bashing.

Personally I think feminists overdo it too... in their quest for vengeance against a patriarchal society they opt for a matriarchal while the reason feminism began was 'equality' not 'dominance'. Especially in todays society, we should be able to create equality, right?

Lebell has a pretty good point. Children reall need parent*s*. Or perhaps a better way to state would be a single parent dedicated to their upbringing, which generally requires a separate econimoc-provider. I don't think it matter much which role the father and mother pla y as long as each role is filled.

I'm not a fan of the republicans, but they have hit on something with their "family values", it really does help to have two people when raising a child.

I agree with it to an extent, I think its good for children to have there mother around, I dont want my kids brought up by television. If my wife was able to make more then me, I would probably end up staying home. I dont think I would do as good a job as a mother, but I would do my best.

As long as a parent is always around thats what matters imo.

When us kids were old enough to take care of ourselves, mom went back to work.
Until that time, she was a stay at home mom and I thank god she was there with us instead of working and us being in a daycare center......
It was pure economics that demanded her to stay at home.

( by the way, ironically, when she went back to work, she was the director at the churches day care center....I guess others in the community thought she was good too.. :D )

Quote:

People. Relax. it is JUST an opinion. Picking it apart and boing offended will get you nothing but pissed off. Read. Skoff. Laugh. Shrug. Continue on.

Yeah, no shit people. If I were to go on and on about the person and their views everytime I saw someone posting up some really stupid silly shit opinion, I would be banned.

I didn't read the article, but this thread seems to be setup just for flaming with maybe slightly deviating opinions on the side and I'm getting sick of it.

Why are you people so shocked at the idea that there are people out their with seemingly alien beliefs?

Quote:

Do any of you *REALLY* think that it is better for children to be raised by Daycare workers or do you think it is better when a parent can stay home full time to raise them?

The latter.

Quote:

:lol:

Well...

I am a helluva lot stronger (physically) and bigger, than most women. So, I suppose if I was a hunter-gatherer I'd be the better hunter. (that statement is sweepingly assumptive. Please don't waste my time picking the nits out of it. I never said women aren't <i>capable</i> of being stronger than me, nor did I mention the beastly muscle chicks that could kick my ass.)

I suppose women and men develped tools to address this disparity.

The author is missing his own point. The theme seems to be that as long as one parent is responsible for income, and one for childrearing, everything will be okay.

That, at least, I can see. The rest of it is simply a person desperate for a solution to the world's problems. This is how he sees it, and hey, rose colored glasses always work.
If you ignore all the other factors in life, the guy is right. Outside his un-reality bubble, however, is a different story indeed.

His choice of the woman as the designated caregiver, chore slave, etc. is simply a product of his upbringing. Personally, I have a problem accepting my (soon to be) spouse as a not-equal. Unimaginable is the word that comes to mind.

I kinda feel sorry for someone with such limited vision.
I really feel sorry for society at large.

Limited vision is not going to ensure species survival (in terms of millions of years of civilization; far, far out there).

Quote:

i see a partner as an equal to me, not somebody below me.

well..not all the time anyhow.. :crazy: :D

Anyone who thinks all women are weak and pathetic should come to Wisconsin and try telling that to the farmers' wives and daughters. I'd rather wear a "Harley's are for pussies" t-shirt to Sturgis.

On average they are by and large weaker then men are, that's a fact. Pathetic I think was just to enrage feminists (I lost the link to his site, but he's like an anti-feminist type, if you hadn't guessed), since he doesn't put it into any context other then to cavemen, muscle mass was far more important than mental capacity.

"Women are weak and pathetic" - Quoted from Topic

The topic is insulting and derogative. Women are who they are suppose to be, half of the human race, not less than or more than. Our species, like most, requires cooperation between the genders to survive. Bearing our offspring was given to those we call women, providing food, shelter and protection given to those we call men. Respect for each gender and the traditional, biological role they have filled in the race's survival is paramount.

While the author of that really long-winded article may have some valid points, mostly the one based on Biology, wishing for things to be like they were in the past is like wishing the earth was still flat.

Last, maybe his only worthy point, the family unit and it's instilling of family values to our offspring is being lost by having both parents working and no one raising the child with those family values. In that, I think we become less human . . .

This article wasn't even completely accurate according to what the jobs of women were in past times. Even in Bible times according to the last chapter of proverbs the woman was the one who bought land to farm, made clothes to sell, and other "Business" dealings. In my grandmother's day (she lived through the depression years) she taught piano, took in ironing, and put herself through business school. Her investments still bring in profit today for her heirs. The wives did not simply care for the children though many had that as their primary responsibility. Farming families all worked in the fields, the women helped with the plows even when planting and breaking ground. The woman is somewhat weaker in muscle than men and so often is it easier for a man to at least assist in the heavy labor type of jobs. That doesn't mean that women didn't do them.

To give you an idea of what position I speak from. I am a stay-at-home mom of one child. I enjoy staying at home most of the time. Sometimes I feel cooped up and I think anyone would if they spent all day long caring for one small child and never having adult conversation. I run a home day care to suppliment my husbands income. We have discussed me working outside the home but paying for childcare for our daughter would cut into my pay enough that I wouldn't be bringing in much more than I do currently AND hubby would be needed to help with the housework more. He appreciates not having to do the housecleaning though he helps with it here and there when needed. I am not a beaten down conservative though. I have worked in offices, as a production control engineer, in contruction doing everything from roofing to sheetrocking to framing out houses. I have taught elementary school classes and sold guns. I choose to stay home because I know my daughter benefits greatly from having the consistency of one person who cares for daily and yet I am still able to bring in the money to help out the household. This guys perpective is very one sided and definately does not take in the big picture. His statement that women are weak and pathetic is very negative. He's obviously never seen a woman go through labor. A man wouldn't probably never be able to go through that kind of pain and work without lashing out at anyone and everyone around and without breaking down and nearly giving up. Any husband who's seen his wife go through labor or even deliver by c-section knows what his wife/So is capable of and should respect her for that.

Well he has some points.. but those points apply on a society where we don't have the modern appliances we have today. I'ts no use getting worked up over it cuz it was true 50 years go but with the technological revolutions we have lived through the last 20 years or so the role of family supporter can be given to any or both the parents.

Yesterday wour societys survival depended on women to stay at home, today i'd say it is almost the opposite.
Imho it is time to find the middle road, where each family decides for themselves who should support the family (one or both). The problem is that many (maybe one fifth) feminists (at least this is what i have experienced. so this may not be universal) abhor the role biology places on them in the aspect of the speices survival and blame it on the men since our role is an other.
This doesn't compute.. You play with the cards you were given, you don't start campaigns against those who got a different set of cards than you simply because you would rather play with those cards.

Todays society and technical level allows women that "freedom" those feminists wanted.
So why the he** not let them experience it.
<h3>Equal opportunity, simply because we can!!!!</h3>

The error in his argument is that he claims that women are the only ones capable of bringing up children properly. He claimed that families with "equal power parents" weren't capable of brining up their children properly.
As you might see his error already i will just take the time and rub it in his face since i'm not a verry nice guy.
He describes families where none of the parents take any form of responsibility and blames the outcome on the woman "since it is her traditional place in society". The problem here is not the woman. It is both parents since none of them shoulders the responsibility necesarry. As i see it, it is both parents responsibility to raise the children properly.

When it comes to children, i do think the best thing would be for one of the parents to invest large ammounts of time in raising them. My parents didn't give a shit about my upbringing and it have scarred me for life.
But it should not mean that one parent take care of it all. It takes two to create a child, and it takes two to bring 'em up properly.
The reason the TRUE feminists went sour on men was because many of us stoped caring about our children, leaving the whole burden on them. No singel woman or singel man is capable of bringing up a child as good as two parents can do together.
It is a Cooperation to raise a child and we all need someone who can relive some of the pressure when it gets too much.

That said i think we all deserve a bowl of icecream!! :D

Oh and i think raeanna74 deserves a big cherry on top aswell!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
While I may not agree with all of it, I think it has some good points.

Let me ask you TFP'ers a question:

Do any of you *REALLY* think that it is better for children to be raised by Daycare workers or do you think it is better when a parent can stay home full time to raise them?

Having both ran my own at home daycare and helped set up a large one, I have to say there is nothing wrong with daycares.
If we had an economy that allowed one parent to support a family that would be great but most of the families that had kids in my daycares were single moms who were using daycare assistance.
We decided somewhere along the line that we didn't want to pay to raise kids (welfare reform), so now the only option is daycare.
If the fathers took responsibility that would be a different matter but way too many of them go off and have another family, fighting paying any child support for the first one they created.
Our culture desperately needs to reevaluate how we value raising children and not just shove the blame on women.
During WW2 there were state supported daycares so the women could work in the factorys.
Why don't we have some kind of system like Sweden where childcare is part of the school system?
The rant printed here is more a man wishing for a system that never really existed except in the fevered imaginations of some neoconservatives.
Even in the 'golden' days there were single parents and broken families.
They just weren't talked about.
At least now we are able to discuss the situation openly.

A link to an equally eloquent article . :rolleyes:

My wife was actually quite happy when I advanced the ideas of her staying home with the kids (we only had one at the time). I'd sat down and done the math on how we could survive on my salary alone, she hated her job, and we went for it. She does have some times when she feels stuck at home, but has ameliorated those for the most part by starting a home-based business. I personally feel that the love and attention our kids get at home is worth the money we might lose from her given (especially given cost of day-care, taxes, cost of work, etc).

Quote:

Originally posted by redravin40
I have to say there is nothing wrong with daycares.

Agreed.
<-- Former daycare kid. I didn't turn out that bad. ;)

A parent at home to raise the kid is always the best option, but sending your kid to a daycare won't turn them into a thug or a hooligan.

"Women are weak and pathetic"... ONLY when they want to be.

ummm no... ever heard of erin brokovich?

Re: "Women are weak and pathetic"

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
Indeed.

anyone notice how often he says indeed?

I counted 12 times.

My father loves to blame the moral and economic problems in this country on Jimmy Carter. As he puts it (very briefly) he was the nicest man who has ever served as President. However, he was also the worst one. It was during his Presidency that inflation crippled the economy, forcing the family to depend on two incomes (mom goes to work, kids raise themselves) and then the resulting degradation of morals that arise out of the lack of parental supervision on a much much MUCH larger scale than had ever been seen in this country.

I'm not certain I agree, but to hear him tell it, it's convincing.

-Mikey

inflation was there before Carter, remember Ford's "WIN" buttons. (Whip Inflation Now) It just peaked with Carter.

I beleive most women suck as individuals. Only good for 2 things.

Quote:

Originally posted by baaa
I beleive most women suck as individuals. Only good for 2 things.

that is a pretty limited view...men like you give us a bad name

im guessing you dont mean love and friendship omg

wow. I found this after my women haters thread...damn I guess my wife was right.

Quote:

Originally posted by thedrake
that is a pretty limited view...men like you give us a bad name

Thank you. Baaa's post was too irritating for me to respond politely. Men like you give most guys a good name. ;)