Female Supremacy Articles - Page 9
Mister Poll - WOMEN SPANKING MEN
WOMEN ONLY - Poll for women who administer or want to administer spankings to their men.
Results:
1) If you understand that your husband or boyfriend has a spanking desire would you spank him?
Yes, immediately! (98%)
Of course not! (2%)
215 total votes
2) You are:
Wife (50%)
Girlfriend (50%)
215 total votes
3) Your age:
over 40 (26%)
31-40 (24%)
22-30 (20%)
11-14 (11%)
15-18 (8%)
19-21 (8%)
217 total votes
4) If you agreed to spank him how would you do it most often?
Over the knee/lap (63%)
Bend him over (22%)
Laying on bed (13%)
214 total votes
5) If yes-what implement would you like to use most often?
Hand (25%)
Any kind of brush (hairbrush) (20%)
Paddle (18%)
I'll use implement, causing the most pain on his bottom (17%)
Cane (9%)
Belt (7%)
Strap (1%)
Switch (0%)
216 total votes
6) On bare bottom or not?
Yes (97%)
No (3%)
214 total votes
7) If yes-for how long(most often)?
less than 30 minutes (49%)
30-60 minutes (32%)
all night/day (10%)
1-2 hours (4%)
2-4 hours (1%)
over 4 hours (1%)
213 total votes
8) Very hard or not?
Yes (90%)
No (10%)
214 total votes
WIVES WHO SPANK ONLY. Following questions are for wives who already spank their husbands!
1) When fixed the beginning of spankings of your husband?
Before marriage (60%)
No more than 1 year after marriage (21%)
more than 4 years after marriage (11%)
1-4 years after marriage (6%)
155 total votes
2) Would you tell about the beginning of spankings of your husband?
Yes (100%)
31 total votes
3) Your age
30 or less (37%)
over 40 (33%)
30-40 (28%)
156 total votes
4) How do you spank your husband (most often)?
Over the knee/lap (59%)
Bend him over (24%)
Laying on bed (17%)
155 total votes
5) Not so often?
Laying on bed (36%)
Bend him over (33%)
Over the knee/lap (31%)
145 total votes
6) What implement do you use usually?
Any kind of brush (hairbrush) (26%)
Hand (22%)
Paddle (16%)
I'll use implement causing the most pain on his bottom (15%)
Cane (11%)
Strap (4%)
Belt (2%)
Switch (0%)
149 total votes
7) Other implements?
Paddle (20%)
Belt (15%)
Hand (15%)
Any kind of brush (hairbrush) (13%)
I'll use implement causing the most pain on his bottom (10%)
Strap (9%)
Cane (8%)
Switch (5%)
320 total votes
8) On bare bottom or not?
Yes (97%)
No (3%)
145 total votes
9) For how long do you spank your husband usually?
less than 30 minutes (47%)
30-60 minutes (36%)
all night/day (6%)
1-2 hours (5%)
2-4 hours (2%)
over 4 hours (1%)
144 total votes
10) Very hard or not?
Yes (95%)
No (5%)
144 total votes
11) Why do you spank him?
To show him who's the boss (40%)
Just for fun (29%)
I feel the females are superior than males and to spank him is so normal and natural (29%)
148 total votes
12) What do you feel when you spanking your husband? You may choose more than one answer.
Excitement (17%)
Power (16%)
My superiority over him (14%)
My female superiority (12%)
Fun (11%)
Delight (10%)
Joy (10%)
Aggression (4%)
Scorn (2%)
Other (0%)
507 total votes
13) Do you have sex during or after the spankings?
Yes (61%)
No (39%)
153 total votes
________________________________________________________________
HEY, BIG SPENDER
The Economist Print Edition
DECEMBER 18TH 2003
Men lose their fiscal prudence in the presence of attractive women
YOU already knew it, but now science has confirmed it: a glimpse of a beautiful woman can change the way a man thinks. Change him, in this case, from the kind of chap who prefers $100 a year hence to $25 tomorrow, into one who simply cannot wait the extra 364 days.
Economists and psychologists have been exploring the notion of discounting the future for some time now. For most people, money today is worth more than the same amount in the future. But how about twice that in a few weeks' time? Or three times as much in a half year? It is already well-known that men discount the future more steeply than womenand that certain types of people--addicts, for instance--discount more steeply than others. But it has mostly been taken for granted that the way a person discounts is a stable personality trait, and an arbitrary one.
Over 200 young men and women participated in the study, which was divided into three parts. In the first, the participants were asked to respond to nine specific choices regarding potentially real monetary rewards. (At the end of the session, they could roll dice to try to win one of their choices, which would be paid by an appropriately post-dated cheque issued by the university.) In each case, a low sum to be paid out the next day was offered against a higher sum to be paid at a specified future date. Individual responses were surprisingly consistent, according to Dr Wilson, so the "pre-experiment" threshold of each participant was easy to establish.
The volunteers were then asked to score one of four sets of pictures for their appeal: 12 attractive members of the opposite sex; 12 non-lookers; 12 beautiful cars; or 12 unimpressive cars. Immediately after they had seen these images, they were given a new round of monetary reward choices.
As predicted, men who had seen pictures of pretty women discounted the future more steeply than they had done before--in other words, they were more likely to take the lesser sum tomorrow. As Dr Wilson puts it, it was as though a special "I-want-that-now" pathway had been activated in their brains. After all, the money might come in handy immediately. No one else was much affected. (Women did seem to be revved up by nice cars, a result the researchers still find mystifying. But the statistical significance of this finding disappeared after some routine adjustments, and in any case previous work has suggested that women are more susceptible to displays of wealth than men are.)
Dr Wilson and Dr Daly speculate that the simple act of regarding beautiful women is able to engage and manipulate the male brain's reward centres. This idea is supported by earlier brain-scanning studies which showed that looking at beautiful women arouses a man's nucleus acumbens, the part of the brain that evaluates rewards. That structure, in turn, is tightly linked to the orbitofrontal cortex, which has been shown to be activated by monetary rewards. So, ladies, it looks as though you were right. Men are just as gullible as you thought they were.
________________________________________________________________
The Natural Superiority of Women
By Ms Justine
(Originally appeared in Capitulation Magazine)
One lesson modern philosophers have taught us is that human consciousness is an essentially historicalthat is to saychangeable phenomenon.
Although the term patriarchal correctly describes the predominant form of consciousness and society in the past, there is a vast body of evidence to indicate that the situation is rapidly changing. If our ancestors could never have imagined the freedom and power, which the women of today enjoy, only the boldest visionaries among us can envision the brave new world of female supremacy that will dawn tomorrow.
In this article I'd like to discuss some of the most essential aspects of the thinking and life that will characterize the society of the future.
In the society of the future, masculinity itself will be redefined along the lines of gynosupremacy. There men will come to understand and accept that their deepest psychosexual fulfillment can only come through service to womankind.
In this manner obeisance before a woman will be seen as a masculine right of self-fulfillment. It should be obvious that the concept of masculinity has always been defined with reference to femininity. Thus even today a man is 'macho' to the extent of his sexual prowess.
But what is this except to say that a man is constituted on the basis of his ability to please a woman?
It is also significant to note how an understanding of the feminine basis of masculinity is becoming more explicit with time. The 'macho man' of yesterday 'conquered' women. Today this is no longer fashionable.
Today a man is more fully a man on the basis of his knowledge, skills, ability and willingness to please a woman. But this is to say that a man is more fully a man to the extent that his 'strong,' 'masculine,' 'macho' side is surrendered.
Apart from feminine influence, the raw inchoate male libido is merely animalistic.
To emerge strong and whole, male elements must be disciplined and purified in the fires of the feminine. Even today these insights are universally recognized. Employers are hesitant to give positions of responsibility or power to single males. (And who is a single male, except one not under the controlling influence of a woman?)
Research demonstrates that regardless of education or training, a man's income rises remarkably once he is married. Insurance rates are drastically lower for married males. What do these facts indicate but that males without the controlling influence of a woman are reckless, immature, incompetent and dangerous? Certainly single males are often involved with a woman.
But this is not sufficient. In order for a male to fully be a man, he must come under the full influence and control of a woman. As Freud recognized, a male who is single is able to achieve partial gratification of his animalistic desires and still retain his 'freedom.' A married man achieves full gratification, but at the price of freedom.
The contract of marriage guarantees what the male animal most deeply longs forto empty his testes on a regular basis. In exchange for this simple favor, he must surrender all that he thinks and knows as freedom. No longer can he do as he pleaseshe must now work hard and be productive.
Neither may he enjoy a variety of sexual experiences any longer. He must now be faithful, honest and loyal. Once again, it was Freud who pointed out that fidelity; loyalty and industry are not masculine qualities at all. Man by his nature is promiscuous, treacherous and lazy.
Few men would choose marriage if they could have a variety of sexual partners on a regular, and guaranteed basis. Men only become loyal, faithful and productive when they come under the control of a woman. It is only the contract of marriage which insists that a man work and surrender the fruits of his labor.
Likewise it is a woman who insists that a man be faithful. It is clear then that man loses what he knows as freedom through marriage. But notice what the loss of a man's 'freedom' really means. Properly speaking, a man who has come under the controlling influence of women has not lost true freedom at all.
In orthodox philosophical language, what he has really lost is his 'freedom of nature.' 'Freedom of nature' describes the chaos of the natural instincts not tempered by reason and moral judgment. In primitive society, freedom knew no restraints at all. There every individual was absolutely free, but chaos reigned.
The birth of civilization demanded the curtailment of absolute freedom to insure the cohesion of society as a whole. In an individual, 'freedom of nature' corresponds to infantilism. Like the savage in primitive society, the infant is absolutely free, but yet uncivilized. The child matures and becomes an adult only by renouncing infantile demands for instant gratification.
For a male, marriage is simply the last stage of the process of maturity. Thus in coming under the controlling influence of a woman, a man has lost his infantile freedom in exchange for being an adult. It is only in a mature adult state that he can realize his innermost potential.
Contra wise, apart from the controlling influence of a woman, a man remains a mere child. The disapproving attitude which society holds towards single males is then not without justification. The single malethe male undisciplined by the control and influence of womanis not and cannot be fully a member of civilized society. Even where he ostensibly lives according to the rules of society, his deepest motivations are guided by infantile desires.
Likewise, in our present society as a whole, the infantile character of male sexuality is only partially, inadequately controlled; hence the character of this society is patriarchal. As feminist social philosophers have taught us so well, all of the essential problems of our society derive from its patriarchal structure.
The demise of patriarchal society would then mean both an ending of violence and aggression, and the full realization of human potential.
It is important to notice that these most essential insights of Freudian psychologythe infantile nature of male sexuality, the sublimating influence of a woman's controlare already recognized and implicit in the workings of our society today.
Yet at the same time, they are covert and hidden. In the society of the future, these essential scientific insights will become fully explicit. The society of the future will fully recognize the infantile nature of male sexuality, and the crucial functioning of female control and domination in the construction of civilization.
Hence the society of the future will be fully, openly and explicitly matriarchal. In their deepest sexual fantasies males envision a world ruled by women, in which men are their mere slaves the truth which the future holds will be more exciting than any fiction.
The new eon of gynosupremacy will not be the fulfillment of male fantasy, but its realization. In the society of the future, women will not simply be the dominatrix of simplistic male fantasy, but will rule with true power and authority over every aspect of male life.
They will be our economic controllers, commanders, rulers, judges and queens. Under female rule men will perform constructive, creative, as well as menial, tasks. They will be teachers, lawyers, artists and scientists.
How then will the role of the male be different than in society today? In the world of tomorrow, these constructive and creative tasks will be carried out under the explicit direction and authority of female superiors. Thus the highest levels of administration and management will be reserved for women.
Likewise, in the home, women will reign as head of the household and as unquestioned ruler of her man.
Because this society will recognize the absolutely critical function of female control and influence to the health of society as a whole; female rule in the home will be supported with the fullest backing of the law. For this reason, violation of man's vow of obedience to his wife will be punishable with the severest penalties.
Although males in matriarchal society will perform complex and creative tasks, they will also endure menial ones. Indeed, the performance of menial tasks in service to womankind will be a rite-of-passage, which every adolescent male will suffer.
In preparation for the adult world of work, each adolescent male will be required to contribute at least three years of selfless, unpaid service to a senior female state manager or administrator.
In performance of the most menial tasks, the future adult male will mature and learn the most crucial lessons of his lifeobedience to female authority. Males who endure this rite-of-passage successfully will be rewarded with greater responsibilities.
They will receive the personal recommendations of the superiors they have pleased. Those who fail this test will remain in menial service for the remainder of their lives.
It is a great paradox that only the most rigorous control of male sexuality can bring about the fullest realization of the potential of man himself.
Yet based upon the previous analysis, this should not be surprising at all. As every Freudian knows, it is the sublimation of male sexuality that provides the energy upon which civilization is built. Yet today, this sublimation is only partial.
If human culture and civilization is built upon only partial control and influence of female authority, dare we envision what potential the full subjugation of male sexuality will unleash? Dare we imagine what feats of endurance, loyalty, strength and bravery, which the soldiers of tomorrow will display under the explicit control and direction of female commanders?
Today the problem of broken homes, abandoned and abuse wives, and neglected children is great enough to shatter the cohesion of society itself. Likewise, one can only imagine the health, strength and cohesion of the society of the future, in which the only acceptable expression of male sexuality is marriagea society in which males must take explicit vows of obedience to their wives?
It's been rightfully said before that the deepest desire of every man is for submission before a powerful woman. The new eon of gynosupremacy will be not only the fulfillment of this fantasy, but its realization.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Women On Top
The Age
By Belinda Smaill
September 27, 2003
Women are calling the sexual shots in the latest crop of heroines on film.
It was one of the most famous invitations ever set to film. In the classic thriller To Have and Have Not, the great femme fatale, Lauren Bacall, tells her later real-life husband, Humphrey Bogart: "You don't have to say anything and you don't have to do anything. Not a thing. Oh, maybe just whistle. You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? Just put your lips together and blow."
Since the 1940s days of Bacall and Bogart there has been a natural whittling away of how a filmic female character gets her man.
Women have become bolder, sassier, and they're not afraid to ask for what they want. And, often, what they want is sex. They may have always wanted it, but they never used to ask for it. To add to this, they seem to be getting it, and on their own terms, too.
Seductive women have always drawn the crowds to movie houses. The camera has been obsessed with screen sirens, from Marlene Dietrich to Elizabeth Taylor to Sharon Stone. Men have desired them and women have hoped to fill their shoes. Yet, there is something essentially different about the new breed of women who feature in films such as Secretary, L'Idole, Sex with Strangers and Personal Velocity. Not only do they not wait for a man to whistle, they also make for great female leads, with all the complexity and depth for which any burgeoning actress could ask.
At times their audacity is extraordinary. In Secretary, Lee (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is initially introduced by her boss (James Spader) to the art of sado-masochism, but soon learns she has found her sexual calling. From this point on, Lee takes the initiative to fulfil her desires by whatever means necessary. And even though her boss soon gets cold feet over the arrangement, she eventually gets her man.
L'Idole's Sarah (Leelee Sobieski) beguiles her elderly Chinese neighbour, the gentlemanly Mr Zao (James Hong) with her sexuality. She is young, beautiful and, frequently, barely dressed. With her long blonde locks and alabaster skin, Sarah is both petulant and choosy. She can afford to be.
In contrast, the women in Personal Velocity may be as beautiful and alluring as Sarah and Lee, but the world they inhabit is not. It is imperfect, boring and sometimes violent. Yet amid the rubble, Kyra Sedgwick's character Delia and Parker Posey's Greta seem to find some way of grasping the moment and satisfying their desires. They also manage to trample on a few moral boundaries along the way.
Yet these assertive, dynamic women with their bold brand of sexuality may, in actuality, not be as unprecedented as they seem. If we cast our gaze around at recent developments in the media and society more broadly, it's not difficult to pinpoint some precursors. For one thing, the astonishing rise in internet dating and matchmaking shows that there are real women who are also becoming more fussy about their love lives. The net has offered women a new kind of control, discernment and pragmatism in their quest for sexual partners.
Sex With Strangers
To add to this, despite the obvious criticisms, the staggering amount of pornography on the net has taken the mystery out of many kinds of once-unspeakable sexual practices. If it is their inclination, anyone who can operate a computer can now consume a vast range of erotica and pornography. A whole new carnal world, that was once the preserve of men, is now open to women. Women can now quickly find out what their options are.
Along with this new sexuality, there has emerged a new body ideal for women. Sometime ago the weak and waif-like image of beauty, for which Kate Moss had become the figurehead, gave way to the "gym-body". The muscular and capable female body has stalked, and sometimes flown, across the screen in films such as Charlie's Angels, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.
An established television diet of Xena Warrior Princess and Buffy the Vampire Slayer has meant that viewers of the small screen are even more accustomed to the image of the fierce, fighting feminine body.
If these new female characters are strong, self-initiating and challenging the power of men to define the sexual playing field, one would think that they must necessarily be the result of many years of feminist struggle. Well, they may be, but they are certainly not acknowledging their feminist parentage.
Conscious debates around feminism have all but disappeared from the public arena. A different language and a new attitude are now framing the agenda for women and their perceptions of themselves. To all intents and purposes, this agenda shares more with the ideas of an economy than with traditional feminism. Women are becoming entrepreneurs in the sexual economy.
Many women have become what men have always been - active players in the erotic marketplace. They set out on their own as businesswomen and they work hard to establish their bargaining power. Characters like Sarah, Lee, Delia and Greta have a pretty good idea what they are after, and they shop around, choosing what to buy and what to sell. They manage the risks and, like any good entrepreneur, they know when to sell up and move on.
The kind of female characters that are dominating film, and other aspects of the cultural landscape, are not looking to transform the nature of the marketplace. They are just taking the opportunity to enter into it on their own terms. But men are still holding the rule book.
This means that to succeed, a woman must still fulfil all the requirements of conventional femininity. If you believe the films, she must still be stereotypically young and beautiful to have any real power to bargain and compete with men. The gym-body may exude strength and control, but very few of us will ever match up to Cameron Diaz. In this respect, this sexuality is not so new.
Moreover, Sex With Strangers is a film that offers a slightly different take on the sexual economy. Watching this fascinating documentary is something akin to peering at a car wreck, except there is a great deal more sex. It explores the "swinging", or partner swapping, sexual lifestyles of three heterosexual couples. For two of the women, however, the possibility of an assertive, entrepreneurial sexuality seems to come unstuck. While they initially seem to be happy about swinging along with their partners, it soon becomes clear that the men have the better end of the deal. They want to continue long after their female partners have expressed their disillusionment with the arrangements.
One can only conclude that although women have acquired a new boldness and a new arena for self-actualisation, it is still an uneven playing field. Yet on the other side of the coin, these female characterisations do point to the way that audiences are becoming less and less convinced by the roles women have traditionally played. They are no longer sufficient for female or male viewers. The active and self-assured woman is far more fascinating and compelling.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Women Surpass Men In Forbes 400
Daily Policy Digest
Economic Issues / Women in the Economy
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
History is being made at Forbes magazine. For the first time since its inception in 1982, women on the Forbes' list of the 400 Richest People in America topped men in average net worth, with $2.8 billion versus $2.4 billion for men.
Although previous lists have included more than this year's 50 women, "an increasing number of women on the list are self-made," said Pete Newcomb, senior editor at Forbes who has worked on the Forbes 400 since the days of the Duponts, Rockefellers and Mellons.
Merrill Lynch, which commissioned a survey of rich females (women with over $3 million in their bank accounts), found that 43 percent of Americans with more than $500,000 in investable wealth are female.
A surge in start-ups, unhampered by old-boys' networks, has contributed to women's rise in the ranks, as well as entrepreneurs.
"Women-owned businesses are growing at a rate of 11 percent -- not quite double the growth of all businesses," says Sharon Hadary, executive director of the Center for Women's Business Research.
"There are a lot of women in the dot-com companies, the eBays of the world," says Josephine Linden, head of the New York office of Private Wealth Management for Goldman Sachs. "Clearly, they're companies that don't have the traditional corporate structure of larger industrial companies."
Source: Beth Kwon, "New Girls' Club," New York Post, September 28, 2003.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Alpha Women, Beta Men
Wives are increasingly outearning their husbands
By Ralph Gardner Jr.
New York Magazine
November 17, 2003
(edited for length)
After dropping off their children at their East Side private school one morning, Betsy and another mother shared a secret. "It was one of those things where you circle around each other," Betsy remembers. "I assumed they had a pretty conventional marriage."
By that she means, as with most of the other families at the school, the other woman's husband was a chest-beating breadwinner who set off for Wall Street each morning in his Town Car to bring home the six- or seven-figure bacon. Or, alternatively, both husband and wife slaved away at medium-to-high-powered jobs, neglecting their children, to pay for the August rental in the Hamptons and their $25,000-per-kid tuition bills.
The embarrassing truth the other mother confided to Betsy was that she was her family's sole support. She worked in advertising while her spouse, an "artist"predominantly in his own imagination, since he had not a single gallery show nor even a commission to show for his talentputtered around the house. "She kind of indicated they were living on her money, and I was surprised," Betsy says. And perhaps a little relieved. Betsy thought she was the only mother in their grade supporting a stay-at-home husband.
Well into feminism's second generation, there are finally a significant number of women reaching parity with the men in their fieldsnot to mention surpassing themand winning the salary, bonuses, and perks that signify their arrival. (The Town Cars idling in front of their children's schools these days at morning drop-off are almost as likely to be Mom's as Dad's.) In 2001, for example, wives earned more than their spouses in almost a third of married households where the wife worked. Yet this proud professional achievement often seems to have unhappy consequences at home.
From Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Alias to Kill Bill, the culture has for some time been awash in fantasies of powerful women. Fetching as these female superheroes may beand however potent at the box office and in the Nielsensare these really the same chicks the average, or even above-average, guy wants to curl up next to in bed in real life? Perhaps not. As the wives grow more powerful and confident, their husbands often seem to diminish in direct proportion to their success.
Indeed, there's little evidence to show that as women acquire financial muscle, relations between the sexes have evolved successfully to accommodate the new balance of power. Neither the newly liberated alpha women nor their shell-shocked beta spouses seem comfortable with the role reversal.
For women, the shift in economic power gives them new choices, not least among them the ability to reappraise their partner. And husbands, for their part, may find to their chagrin that being financially dependent isn't exactly a turn-on. According to psychologists (and divorce lawyers) who see couples struggling with such changes, many relationships follow the same pattern. First, the wife starts to lose respect for her husband, then he begins to feel emasculated.
There are, of course, happy exceptions: couples evolved enough to feel perfectly comfortable acknowledging that the wife is more driven to be the breadwinner, so it makes sense for everyone if he's giving junior his first feeding while she's off covering the presidential campaign.
"Kurt has never been someone who defines himself by his job," says Jami Floyd, a correspondent with ABC's 20/20, of her stay-at-home husband, Kurt Flehinger. "Nor does he care much what people think about him. He's not a Master of the Universe type. I am much more testosteronic. I'm much more driven, much more traditionally male."
But in many cases the role reversal is the work of market forces as much as force of personality; the husband's career is expected to take precedence, and initially it does, but it's overtaken by his wife's. "Maybe the guy's industry changed and he lost his job," says Ken Neumann, a psychologist and divorce mediator who has seen his share of depressed dads lately. "Or the wife steps into the right placesomething she couldn't fully have anticipated. The question is, how secure does the guy feel? When the woman earns more, we can't assume in our culture it's a nonevent.
It's not as if these women ever expected their husbands to support them completelyat least a lot of them didn't. It's just that it never occurred to them that they might be the ones doing all the heavy lifting. And as hip and open-minded as they like to think they are, they were, after all, raised on the same fairy tale as the rest of usthe one where Prince Charming comes to the rescue of Sleeping Beauty.
"I didn't really give a damn where the money came from," says Betsy, an attorney. "That's not the gift I expected a husband to give me. I wanted a romantic figure."
Among the reasons these women were originally attracted to their husbandssex appeal, sense of humor, charismaearning power may not have been high on the list. But that could be because it was a given. Unfortunately, the other qualities start to fade over time if the husband isn't adding something tangible to the equation.
Emily, a senior sales executive, admits she enjoys the control she has over Mark, a struggling photographer.
I can't give up the position of empress," she says. "Everything is in my name. When I've gotten really bratty, I've said, 'Well fine, leave,' knowing he can't leave. I've never had such security in a relationship. There's no risk of flight. Ultimately, it's emasculating for him.
When Emily comes home, she doesn't always want to be the boss. But she says her husband no longer has the authority to take over.
"Ultimately, it gets down to pretty basic stuff. It's hard to be the power broker every day and then be the femme fatale. I'm not going to pay the billsI feel like his motherand then come home and suck his dick."
Anna says that after she and her spouse split and sold their apartment, her 8-year-old asked her why her new apartment was larger and more luxurious than her dad's. "I said, 'Because I pay the rent here,' " she recalls. "And she said, 'You do work harder than Daddy, don't you?' Kids are not stupid. I work way harder than Daddy."
Betsy isn't sure how being the child of a marriage where the mother is all-powerful will affect her college-age son. "I'm curious myself how it will play out," she says. "He says to me, 'I'm 70 percent my father, and the 30 percent that's you is working real hard.' "
__________________________________________________________________________________
More U.S. women crack glass ceiling
United Press International
December 22, 2003
CHICAGO -- For the first time since tracking began 20 years ago, U.S. women outnumber men in higher paying, white collar managerial and professional occupations.
The gap will continue because of a self-perpetuating cycle of workplace gains for women, according to international outplacment firm Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
"As a growing number move into upper management roles, those further down the ladder will reap the benefits by increasingly being targeted for advancement," said John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicates that, as of Nov. 30, women represent 50.6 percent of the 48 million employees in management, professional and related occupations.
In 1983, the first year the government began recording gender data for its occupational statistics, women accounted for 40.9 percent of managers and professionals.
"At the computer, women are just as productive as men," said Challenger. "This fact alone has opened up a world of opportunity for women and is bringing an end to outdated concepts like the glass ceiling."
