Speaking as a family man who is the sole earner of the house, whose wife is a stay-at-home mom to our little boy, I can say it's a kind of a pinch to live this way. But it also highlights a lot of what we don't need in life. We have given up a LOT to live like this, but also, a vast majority of it was useless to begin with and we're better for giving it up.

My mother was a stay-at-home mom. And my father worked every day. My earliest memories were a mother who cooked and cleaned every day and did things with us. (She had 5 sons) And when my father came home, we all ran to the door and hugged his legs and I used to ride his boot (he was a blue-collar worker) as he walked around like Frankenstein's monster. We loved as a family in the most old fashioned and "out dated" way imaginable.

So your snark is 180 degrees off mark. Seriously. The bitter reality is that you are more likely victim of a broken home.

1. "Improve things"? Really? There are loads of women who would love nothing more than to raise their children instead if having babysitters do it while they work and feel guilty no matter what choice they make. And for those women who feel fine about abandoning their children to "trusted strangers," How is that an improvement?! Desensitized, unloving, unnurturing mothers?? Bad families raise bad children who grow into bad adults. And when they have children (and that's happening now) they have NO idea how to raise them.

2. Not men as a category? You can't be serious. And why "certain specific men"? And why do feminists in high government leadership positions care nothing about the very REAL anti-woman things going on in other nations and instead make up nonsense about pay gaps and all of that? Study after study shows that the reasons for many gaps and limits on upper-leadership and lack of women in certain jobs (funny, they never talk about how few women do "grunt work" like mechanics, plumbing, elentrcians, HVAC, garbage collection, truck drivers and all...yes there are some, but it's overwhelmingly male) has more to do with lack of interest and/or having other/conflicting interests in life... say for example, being a mother.

There just aren't fights left to fight for "feminism." And the harm it has done to nearly all areas and aspects they have influenced is amazing. Nothing good has happened since the right to vote has been established. (Please cite examples to the contrary) And please. When have feminists EVER demanded equal responsibility to accompany their equal rights? The draft registration is STILL a sexist law and no one cares and if anyone pushed to require women to register you can bet the feminists would be the first to say "no!"

When, thanks to feminism, women have the legal right to walk away from the responsibility of motherhood. Do men? Even if they never knew or saw the child? Nope. There is a need for equality, but equality of RESPONSIBILITY is elephant of hypocrisy in the room.

Nature gives men and women role assignment by gender. Men can't nurse babies without some serious medical modifications. Any and every time "society" thinks it's smarter than nature, and that a political idealism which challenges reality, bad things result. We live in a society where more children have only one parent and either that parent (invariably a woman) is either living on child support and welfare or is working and not taking care of her children. Neglected children cannot POSSIBLY grow up well.

Is feminism really such a great idea?

Kindly explain a version of feminism that doesn't blame men for the problems women experience.

Please at least google the correlation between agressive and violent behavior with higher levels of testosterone? I don't need to make an argument when there is that. That steroid use makes the distinctive results more clear and obvious with clear "before and after" results is a terrific sign post which mere genetic and other natural survey oriented studies can seek to prove or disprove... and HAVE. Unfortunately the ones which show that people of different races have variying levels which may account for their individual potential and historical acheivement are also looked upon badly... due to politics.

So you're saying "not ALL feminists are overtly angry." Nice argument. It also begs the question of when/where feminists find it appropriate to side with the more radical elements and when to abandon them. In actuality, there is no feminism without the blaming of men for their problems. What else IS feminism after all? Society has ALWAYS had laws protecting women specifically and particularly and at no time in history have men rendered choices and decisions which support men -- men are not famous for supporting men at all. Women, on the other hand, are, and it gets worse with feminism whether "mild" in practice or extreme. And to have seen the kinds of hate and even violence against "men's groups" because it is felt that men neither need nor deserve support or protection? I'm sorry, but you've got some history and facts to accumulate to displace your beliefs.

And seriously, even if these examples you know would NEVER do the kinds of things the more "famous" feminists are known for, it's time to change the name which describes their alignment. If they continue to use a term as poisoned as "feminist" then you might look to question their actual motive and intent.

Enforcement presently requires enforcers who are pretty brutal. There's a lot of yin-yang which people only want to see one-half of.

Nice "wisdom" there. But why did you stop thinking there? There IS definitely a link between excessive testosterone and the lowering of sustained logic, reason and mental stability and order. (Just as there is similar evidence liking excessive estrogen with similar behaviors among women) What happens to people, both men and women when they are on steroids? That's been well established in the medical sciences for decades.

So to say correlation/causation is a problem here conveniently missed the established facts and among these the effect of higher testosterone on mental capacity.

I think the recognition of corre-cause fundamental principle is an important aspect of reasoning. But it is not the whole of debunking anything. (And yes, nothing you say disagrees with that statement.) But to simply state "correlation != causation" and walk away as if you've debunked something is pretty commonly expressed in these parts and I find it disturbing.

We're bio-chemical machines. The efficacy of the machines has everything to do with what's in them, what the balances are and especially what we put into them. But even if that balance is essentially natural or origin and basis, the outcome is still an effect of the factors at play. That is to say, groups of people with higher levels than others show predictable results categorically speaking. (But that's "racist" and we're not allowed to talk about that either)

If anything, this "finding" is just another grain of evidence supporting the obvious where human evolution are concerned. As we continue to value intellectual ability over physical ability, those who have better intellectual ability will do better than those that do not. And for societies to evolve in a direction which favors mind power over physical power literally requires and causes a reduction in that which inhibits it the most. Think in terms of rust causing heat which causes more rust and it's not so much corre-cause as it is factors feeding into one another.

No, I don't favor the "men are obsolete" argument as it's ridiculous on its face. Feminism, like so many other hate-focused idealisms, requires an enemy. And the biggest problem with feminism's enemy is that they are the ones who create and maintain pretty much everything. That's why all of the push for "more women in these fields." The push is because as men continue to become disenfranchised, they know there is a need to replace them. The problem is they don't have anyone who WANTS to replace them because cetegorically speaking, women are interested in what women are interested in while men are interested in what interests men. And there's a certain amount of "nature" driving this fact. Deviations are fine and welcome, but attempting to force idealism over nature has NEVER worked in all of history for any sustainable amount of time and has never resulted in happiness, peace or harmony. So let's not take the observation and the apparent conclusions into political space.

Men cannot be obsolete if only because we are half of that biological basis of sustainable reproduction, development and adaptation. We need to be able to breed and cross-breed as a means of continuation. And that requires men and women... until they can effectively create artificial sperm... which yes, I know they're working on even now.

What the ISPs are ACTUALLY afraid of is popular businesses like NetFlix doing what many other content providers have done when presented with higher costs of market participation have done. They simply stop providing content and let their consumers influence the carriers. It's the content providers who provide value to the carriers, not the other way around. And that fact becomes exceedingly clear when content providers push back by pulling out and fans/consumers get upset.

Can you imagine what would happen to even the most powerful ISP if NetFlix refused to send packets to endpoints controlled by such an ISP? Where do you think the consumer outrage would be focused? On NetFlix or the carrier? History suggests the outrage goes to the carrier who threatens and charges the content providers for the priviledge of connecting with consumers.

Adblock doesn't block youtube videos. They are the ONE advertising seller that "gets it." All other ad sellers do not trust the content providers to host or to count the hits on the ads. So Adblock is effective. But then again, Youtube is an ad seller AND a content provider, so the trust is within itself. Heaven help us when content providers are trusted by ad sellers.

Ads and marketing in general have evolved from simple, respectful "hey, try this! It's good" into manipulative nonsense. Few people can see through it and the result has been devastating to them. It has shaped and certainly harmed the culture of the US and even results in violence in some extreme cases where people want things so badly they hurt and kill each other to get it. Though most will disagree exactly when things have gone "too far" few will disagree that they have.

This is very true as people shop at Walmart, not because of the amazing people that visit there, but because they can get a lot of stuff cheaper. I won't complain about that.

What I will complain about is the outrage expressed by Microsoft sucking at the teat of government because they want to bring said cheap labor into this country while telling lies to the people and that same government. This is NOT a free market while these kinds of things are going on.

But if this senator is really upset, I wonder how much attention he will pay to various appropriations when it comes to alternatives to Microsoft?

This is all just a lot of saying what people want to hear and then doing nothing about it.

Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tags in my comments.

Actually, I believe we need to scale back on consumerism and get back to some old ideas about life like not using more than you need. Living in excess, showing off, "bling" and "Hummers" (that aren't even real Humvees) and useless crap like that has to go. It's possible to be comfortable and efficient. To me, that's "real performance."

But "new things." How can we improve without "new things"?

That's a fair observation. I don't care about the climate -- it's a lie anyway. What I care about is saving money. Just about all of my bulbs produce less heat now. I do a lot of things like that now and have been for a long time. I don't do it for anyone but myself though. I bought an efficient car so I don't have to spend as much on gasoline. I did it for the money. If some pollster asked me if I care about the environment and what I am doing to help it, I would be disqualified immediately because I would say "No, I don't care about the environment, I care about my money." No one wants to hear that though. What they want is more people to join the armies of brainless "we care" socialists to support more initiatives that harm their own interests. I just love how many black people are still supporting Obama despite the fact that they are worse off under his policies and executive orders and especially now with the flood of UACs he has orchestrated. Morons.

It amazes me what actually works on people. The media says "good people do this. are you a good person?" And they fall for it each and every time. "good people don't own guns. do you own guns?" And no one is a peace-loving, person of the cloth any more... now they are characterized as "bible-thumping haters." How are people not dizzy from all of that spin? No, only Islam is a religion of peace any longer... that one founded by a warlord?

And people don't even have to understand the little details. All they have to see is what's not working and that's pretty plain for all to see.