Let Me Count the Ways I Love You

Your snide remark regarding Prince Charles goes to the core of the male attitude to wives. Looks fade. Inner beauty doesn't. Men can't seem to understand why one of the most eligible men in the world chose companionship, shared interests and a love that had endured, over a trophy wife . . . the empty choice of most men worried about their libido. Clearly that was never a concern for them.
Men and women can have many kinds of relationships, but the intimacy of marriage isn't one easily shared. A happy and successful marriage takes a lot of hard work . . . not a lot of wives. A lot of wives just stokes a male's ego and deprives women and children of what should be theirs.

update to #124 Looks like the GM CEO's investment in the coiffure did not do the trick either. He is now joining hamidm looking for a job in Utah.

hamidm #123 The GM CEO supported a great coiffure indeed.

Re: # 121

masadi mian,

..... have you seen the nails and coiffures on these wlefare mommas !!!? ....... high fashion like that does not come cheap !

your only friend,

hamidm

hamidm: how about the welfare kings of detroit - the ones who drive out to the airport..in order to fly in the comfort of their executive jets, hat in hand, to beg for welfare payments??

Hamid writes "au contraire, these fat women with half a dozen fat kids have it better than most of us who have to run around like plantation workers trying to make a decent wage .."

This image of the welfare queen was constructed during the Reagan era as the sob cut welfare, blamed individuals, stole from the public to give to military industries by building up debt and used gutter language and racist bigotry to define enemies- may God damn his soul. That said, if those women with children living in extreme poverty enjoy a great lifestyle why don't you encourage your daughters to adopt that lifestyle if it is that easy. The fact is neither is their life easy nor do they live in "luxury", the jobs that are "open" to them are minimum wage, not full time hours and require transportation that in many cases cuts into the very low wages they have, day care is not available at those wages and if it is it is very low quality, schools in those neighborhoods are crumbling and you get sick of eating cheese after a while. Get some goddamned morals....

TNITC masadi

Re: # 106

masadi mian,

.... i don't understand much of what you are saying, but i think you are winning this argument against kulharee ...... however, i disagree with your contention that the porch sitting welfare mamas are somehow being exploited - au contraire, these fat women with half a dozen fat kids have it better than most of us who have to run around like plantation workers trying to make a decent wage ......... getting that government cheese delivered to your front door beats the heck out of driving to the airport at five in the morning like your friend ............

your only friend in this wide world,

hamidm

Masadi Sahib, Instead of red-flagging my harmless post, can you put the two into proper contexts? Let’s see if you are against yourself, which you proved below. One of the arguments you are trying to bat aint gonna fly, no matter how you look at it. That is really sad.

Masadi, is this you are referring to? Get hold of yourself. If you think this is stealing from you, I take my hat off. I wish you thought and processed information like this.

#83 Posted by FerozQutabshahi on March 28, 2009 9:01:55 pm
Re #79
A value judgment? You better believe it. Otherwise why bother to argue against it? Masadi Sahib are you suggesting that the country where it is outlawed has placed women to a lower totem? Are you suggesting that women have a less chance of legal protection in case of abandonment in Turkey than they do in Saudi Arabia? I think absolutely opposite hold the truth. Since a woman is seen as an object in some societies, she is made to feel that she needs protection. I think it is a bit too demeaning to suggest to women that they need legal protection more than men do. I think now you are getting on a slippery slope. I am surprised that female Chowkies have not joined in the discussion. Well, we have Hamid Sahib, which is just as chicky.

Re: # 116 Masadi Sahib, and what exactly I am being accused of here? I think you are one who is pissing in 10 different directions. Now also cut/paste where I used the argument that remotely resembles yours. You are really acting childish now.

This was the post that Kulharee copied the protection idea from after reading it and then reading the next few posts and responding to RiazHaq and then lying shamelessly here on this post

---------------------------------

#70 Posted by masadi on March 28, 2009 6:53:03 pm
Urstruly to Riashaq, "who incinerated 2000 school girls with phosphores bombs.."

What is tragic in the mullah's use of this incident is the flip side of what was tragic in Bush using the "liberate woman" slogan in order to invade Afghanistan. Both of these thugs consider women to be worthy of contempt, both oppress women and want them to be child bearers and khansamas and nannies- yet when it comes to their ulterior motive they tout examples of the injustice to women and children because in their perverted world view, women and children need men's "protection". Go to hell morons and take your dirty protection with you- hear this message coming loud and clear from all women of the world that understand your shenanigans....

TNITC masadi

Not only did you read my post you responded to RiazHaq when he complained about it, now you two timing liar you are further exposed

http://chowk.com/interacts/15647

#113 Kulharee, you lying dishonest person, don't try to suggest that I haven't given enough reason in the previous posts because I have more than anything you on the other hand have been able to muster with your value laden BS. And yes you do read my posts quite diligently and yes you did copy my idea about protection being a patriarchal ideal. You are just lying as you usually do,

TNITC masadi

Masadi Sahib, more of the same BS from you. I didn’t even read your argument in the other thread, so stop being an idiot and accusing me of something that I don’t even know about. Someone has to be insane for wanting to steal your ideas or your lack of logic. All you have is a Phannay Khan attitude, which will surely take you fairly high in your career. You still ducked what I asked repeatedly, and that is, how does polygamy help women. EXPLAIN. Forgot about the big bad USA just for like 10 minutes, we know US is evil.

Kulharee #111 considering that I have provided ample reasons while you have provided ranting and nothing else, your demand for "empirical evidence" is quite pathetically laughable, and where I have in even one post suggested a biblical or Quranic quote to support my assertions? On the other hand you dishonestly STOLE my post about women not needing men's protection and applied it to my post ignoring its context, and spare me this ceteris paribus BS from dimwit economists who don't have a clue about anything. My support or not, polyandry would not work in capitalist societies that are militaristic and hence patriarchal- since women are the ones that are labor segmented, glass ceilinged and given unequal access to the structure, they are the ones objectified whose worth is determined based on their marital status. Change the entire structure of the society and then we can talk of alternative forms, the way US society is setup polygamy would result in a juster more egalitarian society than monogamy. My victory over your dimwittedness is complete...

TNITC masadi

Re # 106 Masadi Sahib, hold your victory speech for a little while. Not to fast my friend. You may believe that your mission is accomplished, I think you are far from there. So explain to me how exactly, and what mechanism under which polygamy takes place, empowers women. For the purpose of this discussion we will concentrate on Islamic countries only where polygamy is legal. Site empirical research by recognized entities. Don’t give examples from cock and bull Biblical stories. Is it plausible for me to suggest that since you support polygamy, you also support polyandry. This in absence of ceteris paribus.