Rez and "Gym Shoe Bonker"- My love life has been fine for years (thanks for worrying about it). As has been stated, I never HAD to work but I really did HAVE to work for the 2 or 3 DAYS a month away, otherwise I may have had to drug the little buggers. I would have worked more had I been married to the Bonker. (you come off as disgusting......sex before church?!? Lovely! Do yo ever wonder if she's praying for BIGGER things?)
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Two people in Aviation with Kids. Does it work?
- Thread starter CHQFA00
- Start date
- Watchers 17
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
Yes..but nonetheless, you would have choosen to marry The Bonker and choosen to work more... all courses of action that you exclusively control...
What is wrong with a married (or in mega's case "happily together") having sex before church? I mean sunday is a rest day. If one only had sex on a work day then sex would be work-ish...
Nice.... :beer:
Mega said:2. Yes, you are lost....it's a good thing you're not a Private Investigator.
No, I'm only lost because of the statement "Big Brown actually is preventing me from getting married. (Look up who they will and will not hire and you might figure it out)." My assumption is that 'Big Brown' refers to UPS. If that's the case, then your statement is that UPS is preventing you from getting married. Then I was further confused with "look up who they will / won't hire." I thought you were already at UPS since 2005. This has nothing to do with me being or making a good PI. I could be a good PI, I just need to gather up first all the known facts.
3. Oh, I don't know. I always assumed it was fianceE for either one. I'll look into that.
Fiancee is the girl. So when you said your fiancee, you meant your lesbian lover.
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
climbhappy
ex pat
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Posts
- 2,159
flyunited,
"gym shoe bonker" LOL
hey what is wrong with sex before church. we're made in the image of GOD. the union of a man and woman is a symbol of the relationship bewteen Christ and His bride, the church. WHAT is discgusting about a quickie before church where we go to give "thanks" for just a few of the bennies that His wonderful creation has put there, namely, a woman:
God's gfit to man. there..there, i'm not that disgusting
"gym shoe bonker" LOL
hey what is wrong with sex before church. we're made in the image of GOD. the union of a man and woman is a symbol of the relationship bewteen Christ and His bride, the church. WHAT is discgusting about a quickie before church where we go to give "thanks" for just a few of the bennies that His wonderful creation has put there, namely, a woman:
God's gfit to man. there..there, i'm not that disgusting
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
The feminist battle cry "You can have it all" was much better than "You can be a homemaker or a Professional"
Just because women want to have it all doesn't mean men have to vacuum.
From the NYT....
September 26, 2007
Economic Scene
He’s Happier, She’s Less So
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Last year, a team of researchers added a novel twist to something known as a time-use survey. Instead of simply asking people what they had done over the course of their day, as pollsters have been doing since the 1960s, the researchers also asked how people felt during each activity. Were they happy? Interested? Tired? Stressed?
Not surprisingly, men and women often gave similar answers about what they liked to do (hanging out with friends) and didn’t like (paying bills). But there were also a number of activities that produced very different reactions from the two sexes — and one of them really stands out: Men apparently enjoy being with their parents, while women find time with their mom and dad to be slightly less pleasant than doing laundry.
Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist working with four psychologists on the time-use research team, figures that there is a simple explanation for the difference. For a woman, time with her parents often resembles work, whether it’s helping them pay bills or plan a family gathering. “For men, it tends to be sitting on the sofa and watching football with their dad,” said Mr. Krueger, who, when not crunching data, enjoys watching the New York Giants with his father.
This intriguing — if unsettling — finding is part of a larger story: there appears to be a growing happiness gap between men and women.
Two new research papers, using very different methods, have both come to this conclusion. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Pennsylvania (and a couple), have looked at the traditional happiness data, in which people are simply asked how satisfied they are with their overall lives. In the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. Today, the two have switched places.
Mr. Krueger, analyzing time-use studies over the last four decades, has found an even starker pattern. Since the 1960s, men have gradually cut back on activities they find unpleasant. They now work less and relax more.
Over the same span, women have replaced housework with paid work — and, as a result, are spending almost as much time doing things they don’t enjoy as in the past. Forty years ago, a typical woman spent about 23 hours a week in an activity considered unpleasant, or 40 more minutes than a typical man. Today, with men working less, the gap is 90 minutes.
These trends are reminiscent of the idea of “the second shift,” the name of a 1989 book by the sociologist Arlie Hochschild, arguing that modern women effectively had to hold down two jobs. The first shift was at the office, and the second at home.
But researchers who have looked at time-use data say the second-shift theory misses an important detail. Women are not actually working more than they were 30 or 40 years ago. They are instead doing different kinds of work. They’re spending more time on paid work and less on cleaning and cooking.
What has changed — and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends — is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short.
Mr. Krueger’s data, for instance, shows that the average time devoted to dusting has fallen significantly in recent decades. There haven’t been any dust-related technological breakthroughs, so houses are probably just dirtier than they used to be. I imagine that the new American dustiness affects women’s happiness more than men’s.
Ms. Stevenson was recently having drinks with a business school graduate who came up with a nice way of summarizing the problem. Her mother’s goals in life, the student said, were to have a beautiful garden, a well-kept house and well-adjusted children who did well in school. “I sort of want all those things, too,” the student said, as Ms. Stevenson recalled, “but I also want to have a great career and have an impact on the broader world.”
It’s telling that there is also a happiness gap between boys and girls in high school. As life has generally gotten better over the last generation — less crime, longer-living grandparents and much cooler gadgets — male high school seniors have gotten happier. About 25 percent say they are very satisfied with their lives, up from 16 percent in 1976. Roughly 22 percent of senior girls now give that answer, unchanged from the 1970s.
When Ms. Stevenson and I were talking last week about possible explanations, she mentioned her “hottie theory.” It’s based on an April article in this newspaper by Sara Rimer, about a group of incredibly impressive teenage girls in Newton, Mass. The girls were getting better grades than the boys, playing varsity sports, helping to run the student government and doing community service. Yet one girl who had gotten a perfect 2,400 on her college entrance exams noted that she and her friends still felt pressure to be “effortlessly hot.”
As Ms. Stevenson, who’s 36, said: “When I was in high school, it was clear being a hottie was the most important thing, and it’s not that it’s any less important today. It’s that other things have become more important. And, frankly, people spent a lot of time trying to be a hottie when I was in high school. So I don’t know where they find the time today.”
The two new papers — Mr. Krueger’s will be published in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity and the Stevenson-Wolfers one is still in draft form — are part of a burst of happiness research in recent years. There is no question that the research has its limitations. Happiness, of course, is highly subjective.
A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago — despite far more discrimination — is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then.
But it does show just how incomplete the gender revolution has been. Although women have flooded into the work force, American society hasn’t fully come to grips with the change. The United States still doesn’t have universal preschool, and, in contrast to other industrialized countries, there is no guaranteed paid leave for new parents.
Government policy isn’t the only problem, either. Inside of families, men still haven’t figured out how to shoulder their fair share of the household burden. Instead, we’re spending more time on the phone and in front of the television.
This weekend, I think I may volunteer to do a little dusting.
E-mail: [email protected]
Just because women want to have it all doesn't mean men have to vacuum.
From the NYT....
September 26, 2007
Economic Scene
He’s Happier, She’s Less So
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Last year, a team of researchers added a novel twist to something known as a time-use survey. Instead of simply asking people what they had done over the course of their day, as pollsters have been doing since the 1960s, the researchers also asked how people felt during each activity. Were they happy? Interested? Tired? Stressed?
Not surprisingly, men and women often gave similar answers about what they liked to do (hanging out with friends) and didn’t like (paying bills). But there were also a number of activities that produced very different reactions from the two sexes — and one of them really stands out: Men apparently enjoy being with their parents, while women find time with their mom and dad to be slightly less pleasant than doing laundry.
Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist working with four psychologists on the time-use research team, figures that there is a simple explanation for the difference. For a woman, time with her parents often resembles work, whether it’s helping them pay bills or plan a family gathering. “For men, it tends to be sitting on the sofa and watching football with their dad,” said Mr. Krueger, who, when not crunching data, enjoys watching the New York Giants with his father.
This intriguing — if unsettling — finding is part of a larger story: there appears to be a growing happiness gap between men and women.
Two new research papers, using very different methods, have both come to this conclusion. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Pennsylvania (and a couple), have looked at the traditional happiness data, in which people are simply asked how satisfied they are with their overall lives. In the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. Today, the two have switched places.
Mr. Krueger, analyzing time-use studies over the last four decades, has found an even starker pattern. Since the 1960s, men have gradually cut back on activities they find unpleasant. They now work less and relax more.
Over the same span, women have replaced housework with paid work — and, as a result, are spending almost as much time doing things they don’t enjoy as in the past. Forty years ago, a typical woman spent about 23 hours a week in an activity considered unpleasant, or 40 more minutes than a typical man. Today, with men working less, the gap is 90 minutes.
These trends are reminiscent of the idea of “the second shift,” the name of a 1989 book by the sociologist Arlie Hochschild, arguing that modern women effectively had to hold down two jobs. The first shift was at the office, and the second at home.
But researchers who have looked at time-use data say the second-shift theory misses an important detail. Women are not actually working more than they were 30 or 40 years ago. They are instead doing different kinds of work. They’re spending more time on paid work and less on cleaning and cooking.
What has changed — and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends — is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short.
Mr. Krueger’s data, for instance, shows that the average time devoted to dusting has fallen significantly in recent decades. There haven’t been any dust-related technological breakthroughs, so houses are probably just dirtier than they used to be. I imagine that the new American dustiness affects women’s happiness more than men’s.
Ms. Stevenson was recently having drinks with a business school graduate who came up with a nice way of summarizing the problem. Her mother’s goals in life, the student said, were to have a beautiful garden, a well-kept house and well-adjusted children who did well in school. “I sort of want all those things, too,” the student said, as Ms. Stevenson recalled, “but I also want to have a great career and have an impact on the broader world.”
It’s telling that there is also a happiness gap between boys and girls in high school. As life has generally gotten better over the last generation — less crime, longer-living grandparents and much cooler gadgets — male high school seniors have gotten happier. About 25 percent say they are very satisfied with their lives, up from 16 percent in 1976. Roughly 22 percent of senior girls now give that answer, unchanged from the 1970s.
When Ms. Stevenson and I were talking last week about possible explanations, she mentioned her “hottie theory.” It’s based on an April article in this newspaper by Sara Rimer, about a group of incredibly impressive teenage girls in Newton, Mass. The girls were getting better grades than the boys, playing varsity sports, helping to run the student government and doing community service. Yet one girl who had gotten a perfect 2,400 on her college entrance exams noted that she and her friends still felt pressure to be “effortlessly hot.”
As Ms. Stevenson, who’s 36, said: “When I was in high school, it was clear being a hottie was the most important thing, and it’s not that it’s any less important today. It’s that other things have become more important. And, frankly, people spent a lot of time trying to be a hottie when I was in high school. So I don’t know where they find the time today.”
The two new papers — Mr. Krueger’s will be published in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity and the Stevenson-Wolfers one is still in draft form — are part of a burst of happiness research in recent years. There is no question that the research has its limitations. Happiness, of course, is highly subjective.
A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago — despite far more discrimination — is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then.
But it does show just how incomplete the gender revolution has been. Although women have flooded into the work force, American society hasn’t fully come to grips with the change. The United States still doesn’t have universal preschool, and, in contrast to other industrialized countries, there is no guaranteed paid leave for new parents.
Government policy isn’t the only problem, either. Inside of families, men still haven’t figured out how to shoulder their fair share of the household burden. Instead, we’re spending more time on the phone and in front of the television.
This weekend, I think I may volunteer to do a little dusting.
E-mail: [email protected]
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Is calling yourself a FA really that important?
This thread is totally crazy but I do have two cents to add...
first of all - What happened to SWA?
I have a toddler and I dont fly full time anymore, and I just pick up a few rare small trips for old friends. Yes, I had to leave my job b/c of the baby.
G-d forbid something happen at home and I cant get back there - especially with some of the places you go to in corporate. And 9-11.
also once the baby is here - there is no one out there who will look after his welfare more than YOU.
what if the baby is sick - I didnt realize how heavy those situations really were until I had to deal with it on my own. You literally cant put them down! But in corporate there isnt a backup system - who ya gonna call at 5am?
As for Ego-there is a certain unsavory element to some of the fellow flight attendants on the circuit. Its called desparation. There was one who was so desparate & despicable for work that it made me hate my chosen occupation all the more. She taught me never to become so desparate for flying work!
then I had a baby and I realized that there isnt anything worth more in the world than having a family. Why did I wait so long in the first place?
To call myself one of them? Such a waste of time.
I say its not worth it to get a nanny in order to keep a flying job - especially one that doesnt pay well. Unless you really think its important to call yourself a flight attendant. Its not like you have spent years and years building up time and putting off realtionships to go to where the work is. If you were a pilot it would be different.
Get your bene's thru your hubby.
This thread is totally crazy but I do have two cents to add...
first of all - What happened to SWA?
I have a toddler and I dont fly full time anymore, and I just pick up a few rare small trips for old friends. Yes, I had to leave my job b/c of the baby.
G-d forbid something happen at home and I cant get back there - especially with some of the places you go to in corporate. And 9-11.
also once the baby is here - there is no one out there who will look after his welfare more than YOU.
what if the baby is sick - I didnt realize how heavy those situations really were until I had to deal with it on my own. You literally cant put them down! But in corporate there isnt a backup system - who ya gonna call at 5am?
As for Ego-there is a certain unsavory element to some of the fellow flight attendants on the circuit. Its called desparation. There was one who was so desparate & despicable for work that it made me hate my chosen occupation all the more. She taught me never to become so desparate for flying work!
then I had a baby and I realized that there isnt anything worth more in the world than having a family. Why did I wait so long in the first place?
To call myself one of them? Such a waste of time.
I say its not worth it to get a nanny in order to keep a flying job - especially one that doesnt pay well. Unless you really think its important to call yourself a flight attendant. Its not like you have spent years and years building up time and putting off realtionships to go to where the work is. If you were a pilot it would be different.
Get your bene's thru your hubby.
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
Not true! You seem intent on creating men into evil villians that want to chain you to the oven and bed. Men aren't the problem here... its the indentity crisis and the multiple jobs that women have taken on...wife, mother, professional...
The original title of the thread.... "with Kids Does it work?" For some reason the feminist have rejected our children in thier pursuit for power and "emancipation"...
The above article states that women still haven't found equalibrium. In fact they are more unhappy now, then when they "were the patriarch's indentured servants"
Many women took the feminist "you can have it all" bait and its just made them more miserable. The deterministic women whose identity is tied to the workplace. Specifically for us.. the jet. The new paradigm is "you can have it all-just not at the same time"
Do you have a problem with a husband that wants and finds a women who wants to stay at home, while he works? If both are happy is that cool? Do you view her as less? Do you look down on her?
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
1. Oh, of course not....men are NEVER the problem
2. Aaaah yes....the original title of the thread that you helped hijack. The original poster was asking "does it work"? You don't have a spouse in the airline industry so you really cannot answer the question but you had to get on here and flap your yap about your idealisms that she wasn't even asking about.
3. Are you really that naive that you just blindly believe what a stupid survey (that can be swayed) says? I'm sure women were much happier being under the complete control of their husbands....NOT! Interestingly, my mom and many other women from the last generation have complained to me how they could have gotten an education and not been stuck just getting married but that was not available at the time for women.
4. LOL! Yup, I'm really miserable having more opportunities than my mother did. You are naive.
5. Yes, he is a chavanist basically. Men should encourage their partners to have back up plans and their own lives vs. being completely financially dependent on them.
6. Sure if both are happy, I suppose that's cool
7. It depends. If she has a back up plan and chose to stay home, I don't view her as less. If she has no back up (just in case hubby isn't bringing home the bacon anymore for whatever reason), then she's a moron and I don't feel sorry for her when the $hit hits the fan.
8. Depends....is she truly looking to give her children what she feels is best or is she a gold digger looking to be taken care of?
Now, I have a question for you.
Let's say in 10 years you and your wife divorce. Are you going to have a problem giving her half of everything you have (including your pension)? Let's say she takes off with some 25 year old stallion....are you going to be ok just giving her alimony and half of everything or are you going to be saying what a
b!tch she is for taking you for everything you have???? Hmmmmmm.....don't lie now.
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
1. Oh, of course not....men are NEVER the problem
Your sarcasm indicates that men are the problem. Until you take control of your choices you will continue to blame others... let's see what kind of trend we can find...
Correct... I am advocating children before sociopolitical and economic wants. And by that I don't mean women must stay at home. Only a spouse should stay at home.
And you have advocated wants before needs of the kids. You don't like my opinions on the matter so you declare I am uninvited and butting in...
False... you don't know what you speak of....
Wrong again. I know exactly what I am talking about. You are the one trying to find solutions within the "you can have it all" mantra
Complete control? Again, you refuse to accept repsonsibility. Egor the trend? Women had plenty of choice. They chose to redefine womens role in American society. And they are still in a quagmire. Still men's fault? (trend?) Women have had carte blanc to do what they want to do and its still overwhelming..
It is easy to blame men... blame someone else..
Why? Stuck getting married? Was she forced to marry? Was she forced to marry a specific person? Could she have choosen not to marry and go to college? Please elaborate on this??
More choice and opportunity means more responsibility... you've got allot of responsibilty on the way...
Again, you refuse to accept responsibility. If a husband wants a wife homemaker, and finds one and she wants to stay at home, he is a chauvanist. Your victim status that you create is unreal.
Financially independent means ready to eject. it doesn't promote commitment... Some people make choices and accept thier own responsibility for themselves. (trend?).
But he is still a chauvanist?
Not everyone lives in your world. Some women know how to make choices and take responsibility for themselves. They are smart enough to choose on their own accord, a compatable mate.
Again your expeirence has scripted you... that love, marriage and divorce occur in specific paradigms. Not so... many women don't have the baggage that you do, thus they are free to make thier own choices and take repsonsibility for them... (trend?)
Of course you do...
I don't have a pension...but yes. Iv'e got a meager 401k. She's got a IRA that she started too, all in her name.
A real stud with male implants... I mean this guy is 'show' material...
I've always felt that if I called my wife a b!tch that was a reflection of my choice in a spouse. In addition, I've got rights to call my wife a b!tch or moron before anyone else and that includes you.
Again, the goal isn't to dwell on escape plans. I know that is a reality in your world, but I work to make the mariage work. I do the best I can to serve my wife. To make sure her needs are met. Communication and not taking her for granted are pieces to the puzzle. Working for success is better than dwelling on escape plans.
If she leaves with the stallion then I will take care of my moral, legal and financial reposnibilites...
I won't if you won't...
So you are going to have a baby. The gift of life is not to be questioned..
Let's say you come home form a trip and the Dear Jane Letter reads...
Dear Mega
"Can't take it anymore, the baby is next door at the neighbors, I am outta here (which includes moving out of state). Signed "Not your Manbot anymore"
Now.. what are you going to do Mega? You are a single, unwed, mother who flies multi-day trips? Your legal rights to obligate him are less due to the unmarried status. Hopefully you can do out and backs in SDF? But even so.. the demands of a single parent even with kids in school are high... what is the plan before the child goes to public/private school?
Now you are big into back up plans... (if I were in your shoes I'd seek legal council).....so what is it?
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
You say reasoning with me is like reasoning with a barking dog.
Reasoning with you is like reasoning with a rock.
You make assumptions based on what I say so now you say I blame others yet you BLAME EVERYTHING ON THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT.
Pot meet kettle.
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Well, unlike some people, ahem, I can multitask and handle a lot of responsibility. It sounds like you can't so you say others can't either.
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Victim status???
So in your little one task at a time world you cannot be committed to someone and independent at the same time? Once again, sorry you can't walk and chew gum but I can.
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Well, he's setting himself up to be a bitter old man when divorce time comes, in which case, I don't feel sorry for him. He put himself in that situation.
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Uh, I advocate taking responsibility for myself.
Trying to find someone to "take care of you" financially is not taking responsibility for yourself. It's being irresponsible.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
