On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:07:58 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 6/17/2016 9:56 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 22:43:23 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:12:18 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>> No, it was there, prejudice clear and simple and women who could not
>>>> hndle a man as a stay at home parent.
>>>>
>>>> He'd do the laundry in the complex and there were several who'd get
>>>> upset that he was washing my under things and Charlotte's baby clothes
>>>> and *loudly 'whisper'* that he was some sort of pervert.
>>
>> W in the F??????????????
>>
>>> Charlotte was
>>>> in a stroller at his side as they did the laundry. Reverse it, lady
>>>> doing her husband's underthings. All normal and no comments. They
>>>> could handle a guy doing his own laundry but got snarky if it was
>>>> during the week. They could not handle a guy during the week doing all
>>>> the families stuff while watching a toddler.
>>>>
>>>> I went down and confronted them once but it didnt get better until
>>>> several other guys picked a time and showed up enmass for laundry at
>>>> the same time.
>>>>
>>>> You can pretend what you wish, but 2 decades ago, a man washing his
>>>> wife and kids laundry in a public complex, could be in for a less than
>>>> pleasing environment. If you are unaware of that, then you simply
>>>> didnt live on that side of life.
>>>
>>> I am not pretending anything - clearly you Americans must have
>>> perverted minds if that is how people saw it, though I kind of doubt
>>> it. I go in the laundry room here and even if someone else is in
>>> there at the same time as me, I am NOT watching what clothes they are
>>> washing. Jesus Christ - what a sewer mind you have!
>>
>> Carol's comment is one of the strangest things I've ever read in RFC.
>> I mean that seriously. 21 years ago I was doing the g/f and toddler's
>> laundry in a laundromat and of course, nobody noticed or acted strange
>> because I did that. Why in the hell would they?? I'm really having
>> trouble wrapping my head around that one.
>>
>
>She was in the military. If this was in a heavily military population I
>could see it happening.

That sounds even less likely since SHE was in the military, the
military was not by then comprised solely of men!