On 2016-06-16, > wrote:

> Well that's on Fools Book, they get what they deserve.

No argument, there.

While were on the subject of dodgy bank practices, do NOT EVER get a
cashier's check. Turns out, the bank cannot (will not?) stop payment
on a cashier's check and they do not have to reissue them and probably
will not. They require a surety bond to re-issue another cashier's
check. That's essentially you paying more money to buy a bond to
cover the full amt of the errant cashier's check, fer years, in some
cases. Not only are surity bonds expensive, try and find one. Been
there, played that game ...unfortunately.

nb

On 6/17/2016 1:07 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-06-17, Nancy Young > wrote:
>>
>> Why not link it to a credit card for payments.
>
> Cuz yer charged credit? That's how they got their name.
>
Do you mean interest payments? I don't pay _any_ on my cards. I pay
everything off at the end of the month - and the card company pays _me_
a percentage back.

On 2016-06-17 11:46 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 6/17/2016 8:45 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-06-17 11:32 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>> I am not a Trump fan, but it would be a good idea to have some of the
>>>> food bank clients helping out. Some of them are the working poor but a
>>>> lot of them are street people and welfare recipients with lots of time
>>>> on their hands. Helping out and getting to meet some of the other
>>>> volunteers present the possibility of parlaying a volunteer gig into a
>>>> employment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think you would find that like here, many are food bank people too -
>>> fortunately the food banks don't advertise it, how embarrassing would
>>> that be to serve/work in the food bank and everyone know?
>>
>> I don't think it is any more embarrassing to be working in a food bank
>> than it is to just be a client. I am sure that most of the volunteers
>> would appreciate that they help out.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I know volunteers that I think would cringe if they had to actually work
> side by side with some of these needy people. Cracks me up.
>


Fair enough, but those probably aren't the clients who would be
volunteering. I have done my share of volunteering with charity gigs,
and some of the other volunteers were scary enough.

I used to help out with the food and hygiene pantry at my wife's church.
Then all the volunteers had to have a police check ...at their expense
and not reimbursed. That was it for me. There would be no problem
passing the record search, but damned if I was going to pay to have it
done so that I could do charity work for a group in which a lot of them
have criminal records.

On 2016-06-17, S Viemeister > wrote:

> I don't pay _any_ on my cards. I pay everything off at the end of
> the month

I'm so happy for you.

nb

On 17/06/2016 7:17 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-06-16 10:21 PM, graham wrote:

>
> A number of them use that gimmick of sending you something and expecting
> you to pay for it. My wife used to do that with some of the things and
> threw out the rest. After discussing it with her she no longer pays, and
> she feels free to use things they send without paying. As I explained it
> to her, those things are unsolicited, so they are yours to keep. Refrain
> from paying for a long time and they stop sending them.

Coincidentally, I've just received a Red Cross package of greetings
cards in Friday's mail. I agree with you!

>
>
> Another thing I am really fed up with is cashiers asking if you want to
> donate X amount of dollars to some charity, which seems to vary weekly.
> No. I don't want to and I am sick of them asking and putting me in a
> spot. I don't blame them but they are required to ask.

Yes it's a bloody nuisance!
Graham

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:02:41 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 17/06/2016 4:41 AM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:21:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> After contributing to the cancer fund for many years (I was diagnosed 18
>>> years ago) I got fed up with their constant demands. After making a
>>> significant donation mid-year, I received a request for more a few weeks
>>> later. Then in September I received a calendar with the request that I
>>> pay $200 for it. That was the last straw and I immediately told them to
>>> take me off the mailing list.
>>> The CEO of that charity makes $300k+ !!!!
>>> Now with the recession in Calgary, my younger son is finding it tough so
>>> charity now begins at home!
>>> Graham
>>
>> There are many I will not give to on account of salaries. Our local
>> food bank, the CEO is making $143,000 pa, I'm not suggesting she
>> shouldn't be paid, but less than that, something more in keeping with
>> the average around here.
>
>I checked the salaries of the local food bank and they were all below
>$100k - and it's a very busy one. I started giving them money last year
>and they phoned to thank me.
>I won't give to the Sallies, despite their good work. They turn away
>drunks and druggies when the temperature is dangerously low (as does
>another religious group) but the local secular "dosshouse" never turns
>anyone away.

I agree but on the other hand they do it in part for the safety of the
other men in the shelter. We actually have two shelters that will
accept druggies because the need is there but they can be vicious.
>
>
>> I also work consistently for the Alzheimers Association in memory of
>> two aunts. This coming Monday we have The Longest Day and start
>> playing bridge at 6am and go to midnight. My partner and I will play 6
>> to 12 noon. Also do the 5k walk in May for fund raising.
>>
>Walks, runs, rides etc. What's the point of them? There are so many of
>them now and since the participants have raised the money, the event is
>irrelevant.
>Graham

Its good exercise for me and motivates ordinary people to go out and
collect from friends. As for the Longest Day, people play bridge
anyway, it works to make them think about the reason on that day.

On 17 Jun 2016 17:25:42 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2016-06-16, > wrote:
>
>> Well that's on Fools Book, they get what they deserve.
>
>No argument, there.
>
>While were on the subject of dodgy bank practices, do NOT EVER get a
>cashier's check. Turns out, the bank cannot (will not?) stop payment
>on a cashier's check and they do not have to reissue them and probably
>will not. They require a surety bond to re-issue another cashier's
>check. That's essentially you paying more money to buy a bond to
>cover the full amt of the errant cashier's check, fer years, in some
>cases. Not only are surity bonds expensive, try and find one. Been
>there, played that game ...unfortunately.
>
>nb
>
>
In my family we do interac transfers and when I tried to do one for my
niece in Spain when she married it was devilishly difficult and they
charged me $40 to do it. So we all went together on the same
transfer so they only got the fee once

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:17:46 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 17/06/2016 7:17 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-06-16 10:21 PM, graham wrote:
>
>>
>> A number of them use that gimmick of sending you something and expecting
>> you to pay for it. My wife used to do that with some of the things and
>> threw out the rest. After discussing it with her she no longer pays, and
>> she feels free to use things they send without paying. As I explained it
>> to her, those things are unsolicited, so they are yours to keep. Refrain
>> from paying for a long time and they stop sending them.
>
>Coincidentally, I've just received a Red Cross package of greetings
>cards in Friday's mail. I agree with you!
>
>>
>>
>> Another thing I am really fed up with is cashiers asking if you want to
>> donate X amount of dollars to some charity, which seems to vary weekly.
>> No. I don't want to and I am sick of them asking and putting me in a
>> spot. I don't blame them but they are required to ask.
>
>Yes it's a bloody nuisance!
>Graham

Ditto, do not want to encourage them, too invasive. Last one was
Sobeys looking for money for Fort McMoney.

On 6/17/2016 1:28 PM, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 6/17/2016 1:07 PM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2016-06-17, Nancy Young > wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not link it to a credit card for payments.
>>
>> Cuz yer charged credit? That's how they got their name.
>>
> Do you mean interest payments? I don't pay _any_ on my cards. I pay
> everything off at the end of the month - and the card company pays _me_
> a percentage back.

Exactly so.

nancy

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:17:46 -0600, graham > wrote:

> On 17/06/2016 7:17 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2016-06-16 10:21 PM, graham wrote:
>
> >
> > A number of them use that gimmick of sending you something and expecting
> > you to pay for it. My wife used to do that with some of the things and
> > threw out the rest. After discussing it with her she no longer pays, and
> > she feels free to use things they send without paying. As I explained it
> > to her, those things are unsolicited, so they are yours to keep. Refrain
> > from paying for a long time and they stop sending them.
>
> Coincidentally, I've just received a Red Cross package of greetings
> cards in Friday's mail. I agree with you!
>
> >
> >
> > Another thing I am really fed up with is cashiers asking if you want to
> > donate X amount of dollars to some charity, which seems to vary weekly.
> > No. I don't want to and I am sick of them asking and putting me in a
> > spot. I don't blame them but they are required to ask.
>
> Yes it's a bloody nuisance!
> Graham

It's junk mail, so toss it. True hounding is by phone.

--

sf

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>I think credit cards are better than debit cards about fraudulent charges. No experience to back that up, and hope I never have either!

They're exactly the same in that regard.

On 6/17/2016 3:12 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> > wrote:
>
>> I think credit cards are better than debit cards about fraudulent charges.
>> No experience to back that up, and hope I never have either!
>
> They're exactly the same in that regard.

Not quite. With credit cards, you're not out the cash before
it's straightened out.

nancy

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:30:09 -0300, wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:43:19 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>We didn't really. Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>>Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
>>'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
>>tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see a
>>man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>
>I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
>feel threatened?

Very good question...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:16:34 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 6/17/2016 3:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I think credit cards are better than debit cards about fraudulent charges.
> >> No experience to back that up, and hope I never have either!
>>
>> They're exactly the same in that regard.
>
>Not quite. With credit cards, you're not out the cash before
>it's straightened out.

What I meant was if there was a problem with any fraudulent charges
that need sorting out with the bank/debit card provider.
At least my VISA debit card works the same as a VISA credit card in
that respect, and being VISA I assume that would be the case anywhere.

On 6/17/2016 3:40 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:16:34 -0400, Nancy Young
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2016 3:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think credit cards are better than debit cards about fraudulent charges.
>>>> No experience to back that up, and hope I never have either!
>>>
>>> They're exactly the same in that regard.
>>
>> Not quite. With credit cards, you're not out the cash before
>> it's straightened out.
>
> What I meant was if there was a problem with any fraudulent charges
> that need sorting out with the bank/debit card provider.
> At least my VISA debit card works the same as a VISA credit card in
> that respect, and being VISA I assume that would be the case anywhere.
>
I think banking regulations are just a bit different in the US, than in
Australia.

On 2016-06-17 2:51 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:17:46 -0600, graham > wrote:

>>> Another thing I am really fed up with is cashiers asking if you want to
>>> donate X amount of dollars to some charity, which seems to vary weekly.
>>> No. I don't want to and I am sick of them asking and putting me in a
>>> spot. I don't blame them but they are required to ask.
>>
>> Yes it's a bloody nuisance!
>> Graham
>
> It's junk mail, so toss it. True hounding is by phone.
>


??? It's junk mail if they ring up your purchases and then ask if you
want to donate $2 to their charity of the week?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:49:35 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

>On 6/17/2016 3:40 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:16:34 -0400, Nancy Young
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/17/2016 3:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think credit cards are better than debit cards about fraudulent charges.
>>>>> No experience to back that up, and hope I never have either!
>>>>
>>>> They're exactly the same in that regard.
>>>
>>> Not quite. With credit cards, you're not out the cash before
>>> it's straightened out.
>>
>> What I meant was if there was a problem with any fraudulent charges
>> that need sorting out with the bank/debit card provider.
>> At least my VISA debit card works the same as a VISA credit card in
>> that respect, and being VISA I assume that would be the case anywhere.
>>
>I think banking regulations are just a bit different in the US, than in
>Australia.

I know the banks differ in some ways, but I thought VISA operated the
same way worldwide?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:16:34 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 6/17/2016 3:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I think credit cards are better than debit cards about fraudulent charges.
> >> No experience to back that up, and hope I never have either!
>>
>> They're exactly the same in that regard.
>
>Not quite. With credit cards, you're not out the cash before
>it's straightened out.
>
>nancy

But they do offer the same protection. I had an issue once and the
money was back in my account in less than 8 hours.

Bruce > wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> "cshenk" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>>>>> Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
>>>>> 'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
>>>>> tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see a
>>>>> man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>>>>
>>>> I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
>>>> feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
>>>
>>> Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
>>
>> I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
>> home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
>
> You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
> described. Imagine harder.
>

Have you ever been a stay at home mom, Bruce? Has cshenk??

--
jinx the minx

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:41:14 -0400, Gary > wrote:



>
>I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
>home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom." If anything, a stay
>at home husband would be looked down upon as a lazy bum, staying at
>home and letting the wife work.
>
>I raised my daughter as a single parent since she was age 7. I was a
>stay at home (every chance I got) and also the working parent. I was
>the elementary school's very first male room mother. The beginning of
>the year room mothers meeting and I was the only guy among many hot
>looking moms. Sheldon would have liked that.
>
>Anyway, they didn't feel threatened, they treated me like their mascot
>male room mother. Those were good times. I did the room mother thing
>for 4 years and enjoyed being part of it all.

I don't know about threatened, but going back some years it was
certainly not the norm. I never heard of a stay at home dad until
sometime in the 80's.

In article >, says...
>
> Bruce wrote:
> >
> > In article >, says...
> > >
> > > Bruce wrote:
> > > >
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > > "cshenk" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
> > > > > >Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
> > > > > >'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
> > > > > >tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see a
> > > > > >man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
> > > > > feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
> > > >
> > > > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
> > >
> > > I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
> > > home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
> >
> > You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
> > described. Imagine harder.
>
> cshenk is the one that needs to imagine harder. If stay-at-home women
> felt threatened that a man would do that, they must worry that their
> husbands might want to do the same and THEY might actually have to go
> out each day for a workplace job.

I can imagine that women felt threatened by a man coming into "their"
domain. That's all.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:56:29 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:07:51 -0700, sf > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:22:44 +1000, Bruce >
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In article >,
> > > >> says...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Well that's on Fools Book, they get what they deserve.
> > > >>
> > > >> Because they use Facebook? That's rather narrow-minded of you.
> > > >
> > > >It's typical of her. That said, those drop of a hat Go Fund Me pages
> > > >are disgusting too.
> > >
> > > They are not just disgusting, they are typical of Fools Book - yes, I
> > > know you exist by feeling superior - I am surprised you bother with
> > > usenet.
> >
> > You don't make much sense.
>
> She's just here to sharpen her fangs and claws.

I don't use Twitter. Does that mean I have to look down on people who
do?

In article >,
says...
>
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >She's just here to sharpen her fangs and claws.
>
> Really ? I hear you've got plenty I could sink them in !

Women like you are nastier to other women than men could ever be. Can
you pass that on to the chip on your shoulder?

On 2016-06-17 4:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> Not quite. With credit cards, you're not out the cash before
>> it's straightened out.
>>
>> nancy
>
> But they do offer the same protection. I had an issue once and the
> money was back in my account in less than 8 hours.
>


I once had an issue with Visa when a restaurant double billed me for
what was already an expensive lunch. The had the bill for the day we
had eaten there and then another for about 50 cents more a few days
later. I called Visa as soon as I got my statement. They contacted the
restaurant and bought their story about an innocent mistake.... they
were new and had just opened, thought it had not gone through. They
were to credit my account. It didn't happen. I contacted Visa again.
They were going to ask for hard copies and if they didn't get them
within 45 days I would not be liable. I waited... credit never went
through.

One day I was working in the area and went in (in uniform) and demanded
they correct the problem. They gave me a cheque. I cashed it ASAP. By
coincident, Visa called that night and asked if there had been
resolution to my problem. Yes, they had paid me the amount in
questions. Then the Visa lady was relieved and said that after all that
time it would have been hard to get it settled? All what time? I
contacted them as soon as I got my bill with the fraudulent charge. They
knew it was an improper charge and counted on the restaurant to issue
the credit. AFAIAC, once the restaurant admitted that it was wrong they
should have cancelled the charge. For all I know, the may have reversed
the charge to the restaurant and pocketed it. I still have a Visa card
but I rarely use it.

On 2016-06-17 4:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> Anyway, they didn't feel threatened, they treated me like their mascot
>> male room mother. Those were good times. I did the room mother thing
>> for 4 years and enjoyed being part of it all.
>
> I don't know about threatened, but going back some years it was
> certainly not the norm. I never heard of a stay at home dad until
> sometime in the 80's.
>


The conversation I had with some women about a stay at home dad was in
the 80s or early 90s, and they thought that any guy who let his wife go
out and work while he stayed home was a lazy bum.

On 6/17/2016 4:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:16:34 -0400, Nancy Young
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2016 3:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think credit cards are better than debit cards about fraudulent charges.
>>>> No experience to back that up, and hope I never have either!
>>>
>>> They're exactly the same in that regard.
>>
>> Not quite. With credit cards, you're not out the cash before
>> it's straightened out.

> But they do offer the same protection. I had an issue once and the
> money was back in my account in less than 8 hours.

From my perspective, from the time someone ripped you off and the
time that the money was replaced is when credit card protection
was Way better.

nancy

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Bruce wrote:
>>
>> says...
>> >
>> > "cshenk" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>> > >Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
>> > >'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
>> > >tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see a
>> > >man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>> >
>> > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
>> > feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
>>
>> Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
>
> I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
> home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom." If anything, a stay
> at home husband would be looked down upon as a lazy bum, staying at
> home and letting the wife work.
>
> I raised my daughter as a single parent since she was age 7. I was a
> stay at home (every chance I got) and also the working parent. I was
> the elementary school's very first male room mother. The beginning of
> the year room mothers meeting and I was the only guy among many hot
> looking moms. Sheldon would have liked that.
>
> Anyway, they didn't feel threatened, they treated me like their mascot
> male room mother. Those were good times. I did the room mother thing
> for 4 years and enjoyed being part of it all.

I don't get that either. I don't feel threatened by anyone unless they look
at me in a menacing way, are brandishing a weapon or are speaking to me in a
way that makes me feel unsafe.

"Bruce" > wrote in message
T...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> > says...
>> > >
>> > > "cshenk" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>> > > >Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
>> > > >'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
>> > > >tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see
>> > > >a
>> > > >man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>> > >
>> > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
>> > > feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
>> >
>> > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
>>
>> I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
>> home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
>
> You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
> described. Imagine harder.

I haven't seen it. And I have encountered stay at home dads with military
wives. *shrugs*

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Bruce wrote:
>>
>> In article >, says...
>> >
>> > Bruce wrote:
>> > >
>> > > says...
>> > > >
>> > > > "cshenk" wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>> > > > >Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
>> > > > >'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It
>> > > > >was
>> > > > >tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to
>> > > > >see a
>> > > > >man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would
>> > > > they
>> > > > feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
>> > >
>> > > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
>> >
>> > I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
>> > home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
>>
>> You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
>> described. Imagine harder.
>
> cshenk is the one that needs to imagine harder. If stay-at-home women
> felt threatened that a man would do that, they must worry that their
> husbands might want to do the same and THEY might actually have to go
> out each day for a workplace job.
>
> Stay at home is serious work and lots of work but you don't have to
> deal with other people. Stay at home means you are your own boss. It
> makes a difference. If you've never done it, you are clueless. I was
> able to do both and I do know the difference.
>
> A stay at home man is often looked down upon as a lazy bum, letting
> his wife go out each day to work.

I can assure you that when I went to work, I did far less work overall and
less to do around the house. Of course I was single and there was only a cat
who might make a mess when I was away. Staying at home is far more work as
the work never ends.

However, the lazy perception extends to women as well. I well remember this
other woman looking down her nose, full out laughing at me in disgust and
saying that I was being a gold digger. Mind you, this was a woman who had
never ever held a job. She did go to college but got married straight after
graduation. I just sort of batted my eyes at her because I felt at least I
had worked and the reason I wasn't now was because I was disabled so I did
have the disability money.

The last laugh was on her when her husband told her that his life long dream
was to own a certain restaurant franchise. He does own two now but guess who
isn't working? Yep. He made his wife and brother go take the corporate
training. Or maybe he didn't *make* the brother do it but he did do it. Bro
decided it was not for him but he did tough it out for a year to fulfill his
contract. Meanwhile the wife is being run ragged, hoping to get to the point
where she won't have to work And the husband is sitting back fat and happy.
I do mean fat too. We keep running into him when out and about. He is fond
of those big Costco pizzas.

In article >, says...
>
> "Bruce" > wrote in message
> T...
> > In article >, says...
> >>
> >> Bruce wrote:
> >> >
> >> > says...
> >> > >
> >> > > "cshenk" wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
> >> > > >Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
> >> > > >'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
> >> > > >tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see
> >> > > >a
> >> > > >man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
> >> > > feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
> >> >
> >> > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
> >>
> >> I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
> >> home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
> >
> > You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
> > described. Imagine harder.
>
> I haven't seen it. And I have encountered stay at home dads with military
> wives. *shrugs*

I've never had a coconut fall on my head, but if you tell me it happened
to you, I'll believe you.

"Bruce" > wrote in message
T...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> > In article >, says...
>> > >
>> > > Bruce wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > says...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "cshenk" wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>> > > > > >Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
>> > > > > >'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It
>> > > > > >was
>> > > > > >tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to
>> > > > > >see a
>> > > > > >man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would
>> > > > > they
>> > > > > feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
>> > >
>> > > I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
>> > > home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
>> >
>> > You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
>> > described. Imagine harder.
>>
>> cshenk is the one that needs to imagine harder. If stay-at-home women
>> felt threatened that a man would do that, they must worry that their
>> husbands might want to do the same and THEY might actually have to go
>> out each day for a workplace job.
>
> I can imagine that women felt threatened by a man coming into "their"
> domain. That's all.

When we lived in NY, I used to go take tea with a neighbor man. He was
actually in the military but he often worked nights so he was then one to
walk down to the bus to walk his daughter back home.

One day of the week, school let out an hour late. I had forgotten this and
he didn't know this so we both set out early, then realized our mistake. His
apartment was halfway to the bus stop so stopping there worked well for me.
I often drove to the stop as it was a tad far for me to walk to without
needing a rest. We often had tea after that. He seemed to know everything
about it and he was always sending away for fancy ones.

The funny thing about this was when I told my husband what I had been doing,
he looked horrified and said that the only person he knew that talked more
than me was this guy. Heh. Likely true. Husband said he didn't want to
picture the two of us talking.

I was actually somewhat friends with his wife but she could be somewhat a
witch with a b at times and you just never knew which version you might get.
I liked him a lot better. He was always nice.

wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:43:19 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
> > Ed Pawlowski wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> >> On 6/14/2016 10:32 PM, cshenk wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I don't know why people/morons seem to assume that older women
> >> > > never worked outside the home, Hell a lot of us worked outside
> >> > > the home as well as doing most of the work at home after work.
> At >> > > least these days the husbands, boyfriends etc., are helping
> out a >> > > whole lot as a rule with the house and kids.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheri
> >> >
> >> > True on the younger ones helping more but plenty of the older
> >> > generation men did too. They were however raised where the
> mother >> > didnt generally work outside the home and it probably
> seemed sane to >> > them to not think too much about how the floors
> got mopped and such.
> >
> >> Of eligible women participating in the workforce, in 1950 it was
> >> about 27% while today it is almost 60%
> >
> > I'm suprised it is that low. It seems more like 80% now.
> >
> >> Stay at home moms was quite common when I was a kid, not so much
> now. >> Lots of things have changed, but back then one person could
> make >> enough money in a good job to support a family, buy a modest
> house, >> one car. I'm not sure we progressed when we warehouse kids
> in day >> care.
> >
> > We didn't really. Don and I decided one of us needed to be home
> > when Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
> > 'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
> > tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see
> > a man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>
> I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
> feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.

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. 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.



--

Gary wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Bruce wrote:
> >
> > In article >, says...
> > >
> > > Bruce wrote:
> > > >
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > > "cshenk" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
> > > > > > Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had
> > > > > > just 'retired' and my income potential was higher, he
> > > > > > stayed home. It was tough because the stay-at-home women
> > > > > > felt threatened somehow to see a man do it with a small
> > > > > > child while the wife went to work.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth
> > > > > would they feel threatened? More likely your husband felt
> > > > > threatened.
> > > >
> > > > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
> > >
> > > I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
> > > home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
> >
> > You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
> > described. Imagine harder.
>
> cshenk is the one that needs to imagine harder. If stay-at-home women
> felt threatened that a man would do that, they must worry that their
> husbands might want to do the same and THEY might actually have to go
> out each day for a workplace job.
>
> Stay at home is serious work and lots of work but you don't have to
> deal with other people. Stay at home means you are your own boss. It
> makes a difference. If you've never done it, you are clueless. I was
> able to do both and I do know the difference.
>
> A stay at home man is often looked down upon as a lazy bum, letting
> his wife go out each day to work.

Thats what I am talking about Gary. No one calls a stay at hom Mom a
lazy bum. A man however, especially 20 years ago, was in for some
serious crap.

--

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:32:40 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> > In article >, says...
>> > >
>> > > Bruce wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > says...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "cshenk" wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>> > > > > >Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
>> > > > > >'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
>> > > > > >tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see a
>> > > > > >man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
>> > > > > feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
>> > >
>> > > I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
>> > > home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
>> >
>> > You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
>> > described. Imagine harder.
>>
>> cshenk is the one that needs to imagine harder. If stay-at-home women
>> felt threatened that a man would do that, they must worry that their
>> husbands might want to do the same and THEY might actually have to go
>> out each day for a workplace job.
>
>I can imagine that women felt threatened by a man coming into "their"
>domain. That's all.

Well you are totally incorrect.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:26:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-06-17 4:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, they didn't feel threatened, they treated me like their mascot
>>> male room mother. Those were good times. I did the room mother thing
>>> for 4 years and enjoyed being part of it all.
>>
>> I don't know about threatened, but going back some years it was
>> certainly not the norm. I never heard of a stay at home dad until
>> sometime in the 80's.
>>
>
>
>The conversation I had with some women about a stay at home dad was in
>the 80s or early 90s, and they thought that any guy who let his wife go
>out and work while he stayed home was a lazy bum.
>
The ones I knew went for the one earning the most being the bread
winner.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:12:18 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:43:19 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>
>> > Ed Pawlowski wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> >> On 6/14/2016 10:32 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > I don't know why people/morons seem to assume that older women
>> >> > > never worked outside the home, Hell a lot of us worked outside
>> >> > > the home as well as doing most of the work at home after work.
>> At >> > > least these days the husbands, boyfriends etc., are helping
>> out a >> > > whole lot as a rule with the house and kids.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cheri
>> >> >
>> >> > True on the younger ones helping more but plenty of the older
>> >> > generation men did too. They were however raised where the
>> mother >> > didnt generally work outside the home and it probably
>> seemed sane to >> > them to not think too much about how the floors
>> got mopped and such.
>> >
>> >> Of eligible women participating in the workforce, in 1950 it was
>> >> about 27% while today it is almost 60%
>> >
>> > I'm suprised it is that low. It seems more like 80% now.
>> >
>> >> Stay at home moms was quite common when I was a kid, not so much
>> now. >> Lots of things have changed, but back then one person could
>> make >> enough money in a good job to support a family, buy a modest
>> house, >> one car. I'm not sure we progressed when we warehouse kids
>> in day >> care.
>> >
>> > We didn't really. Don and I decided one of us needed to be home
>> > when Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
>> > 'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
>> > tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see
>> > a man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
>>
>> I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
>> feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
>
>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. 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!

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:16:54 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>Gary wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> > In article >, says...
>> > >
>> > > Bruce wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > says...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "cshenk" wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>> > > > > > Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had
>> > > > > > just 'retired' and my income potential was higher, he
>> > > > > > stayed home. It was tough because the stay-at-home women
>> > > > > > felt threatened somehow to see a man do it with a small
>> > > > > > child while the wife went to work.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth
>> > > > > would they feel threatened? More likely your husband felt
>> > > > > threatened.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
>> > >
>> > > I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
>> > > home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
>> >
>> > You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
>> > described. Imagine harder.
>>
>> cshenk is the one that needs to imagine harder. If stay-at-home women
>> felt threatened that a man would do that, they must worry that their
>> husbands might want to do the same and THEY might actually have to go
>> out each day for a workplace job.
>>
>> Stay at home is serious work and lots of work but you don't have to
>> deal with other people. Stay at home means you are your own boss. It
>> makes a difference. If you've never done it, you are clueless. I was
>> able to do both and I do know the difference.
>>
>> A stay at home man is often looked down upon as a lazy bum, letting
>> his wife go out each day to work.
>
>Thats what I am talking about Gary. No one calls a stay at hom Mom a
>lazy bum. A man however, especially 20 years ago, was in for some
>serious crap.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:16:54 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>Gary wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> > In article >, says...
>> > >
>> > > Bruce wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > says...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "cshenk" wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
>> > > > > > Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had
>> > > > > > just 'retired' and my income potential was higher, he
>> > > > > > stayed home. It was tough because the stay-at-home women
>> > > > > > felt threatened somehow to see a man do it with a small
>> > > > > > child while the wife went to work.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth
>> > > > > would they feel threatened? More likely your husband felt
>> > > > > threatened.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
>> > >
>> > > I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
>> > > home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
>> >
>> > You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
>> > described. Imagine harder.
>>
>> cshenk is the one that needs to imagine harder. If stay-at-home women
>> felt threatened that a man would do that, they must worry that their
>> husbands might want to do the same and THEY might actually have to go
>> out each day for a workplace job.
>>
>> Stay at home is serious work and lots of work but you don't have to
>> deal with other people. Stay at home means you are your own boss. It
>> makes a difference. If you've never done it, you are clueless. I was
>> able to do both and I do know the difference.
>>
>> A stay at home man is often looked down upon as a lazy bum, letting
>> his wife go out each day to work.
>
>Thats what I am talking about Gary. No one calls a stay at hom Mom a
>lazy bum. A man however, especially 20 years ago, was in for some
>serious crap.

Really? I thought you were just cranking on about the laundry??

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:32:40 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, says...
> >>
> >> Bruce wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article >, says...
> >> > >
> >> > > Bruce wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > says...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > "cshenk" wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Don and I decided one of us needed to be home when
> >> > > > > >Charlotte was born and since I was active duty and he had just
> >> > > > > >'retired' and my income potential was higher, he stayed home. It was
> >> > > > > >tough because the stay-at-home women felt threatened somehow to see a
> >> > > > > >man do it with a small child while the wife went to work.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I think you have a high powered imagination - why on earth would they
> >> > > > > feel threatened? More likely your husband felt threatened.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is that you talking or that same old chip on your shoulder?
> >> > >
> >> > > I completely agree with lucretia here. I can't imagine why stay at
> >> > > home women would feel threatened by a "Mr.Mom."
> >> >
> >> > You may not be able to imagine it, but that's the reality cshenk
> >> > described. Imagine harder.
> >>
> >> cshenk is the one that needs to imagine harder. If stay-at-home women
> >> felt threatened that a man would do that, they must worry that their
> >> husbands might want to do the same and THEY might actually have to go
> >> out each day for a workplace job.
> >
> >I can imagine that women felt threatened by a man coming into "their"
> >domain. That's all.
>
> Well you are totally incorrect.

How do you know? You weren't there

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.