No shit the first lady feels she has imposter syndrome

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46434147

Michelle Obama talks about imposter syndrome. This is coming from a person who had all the attention of a president without actually being the president. And her audience expecting her to deliver, and she no doubt, trying to.

It's cruel to give the first lady attention. She didn't ask for it. She's not the president. She hasn't done the required prep work.

 

[fast]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46434147

Michelle Obama talks about imposter syndrome. This is coming from a person who had all the attention of a president without actually being the president. And her audience expecting her to deliver, and she no doubt, trying to.

It's cruel to give the first lady attention. She didn't ask for it. She's not the president. She hasn't done the required prep work.

And what’s the justification for that expectation? If someone breaks into my house while I’m asleep and cooks me breakfast, there’s going to be people expecting I compensate them for serving me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46434147

Michelle Obama talks about imposter syndrome. This is coming from a person who had all the attention of a president without actually being the president. And her audience expecting her to deliver, and she no doubt, trying to.

It's cruel to give the first lady attention. She didn't ask for it. She's not the president. She hasn't done the required prep work.

And what’s the justification for that expectation? If someone breaks into my house while I’m asleep and cooks me breakfast, there’s going to be people expecting I compensate them for serving me.

Not the same thing. Let's say your girlfriend owns the house and you're just sleeping over, they cook her breakfast and expects you to compensate them for serving both of you. Nothing you asked for.

Being the president isn't a team job. And shouldn't be a team job. It's a one person job.

 

[Politesse]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46434147

Michelle Obama talks about imposter syndrome. This is coming from a person who had all the attention of a president without actually being the president. And her audience expecting her to deliver, and she no doubt, trying to.

It's cruel to give the first lady attention. She didn't ask for it. She's not the president. She hasn't done the required prep work.

And what’s the justification for that expectation? If someone breaks into my house while I’m asleep and cooks me breakfast, there’s going to be people expecting I compensate them for serving me.

Not the same thing. Let's say your girlfriend owns the house and you're just sleeping over, they cook her breakfast and expects you to compensate them for serving both of you. Nothing you asked for.

Being the president isn't a team job. And shouldn't be a team job. It's a one person job.

That in and of itself is an absurd claim. Part of the reason this presidency is failing, and why most of Trump's businesses fail, is his inability to work with others effectively.

I agree that "first lady" is not a governmental position, though.

 

[fast]

People have needs and wants, but they don’t always deserve what they need and want, but somehow they twist in their minds that they deserve what they need and want. People (well, certain kinds of people) will say or do any number of things to get what they need and want. Not much time goes by before their expectations take root. They’ll take tacit agreement to new heights, and they’ll point to cultural expectations to bolster their confidence that they’re right. The disease is no longer isolated to those on the fringes of society. People genuinely speak of responsibilities, duties, and that dreaded ‘O’ word, “obligations” that are grown from pure unadulterated bullshit.

Businesses tout that they offer friendly service, and what I’m met with are underpaid people doing all they can to get by, but their expectations are built on a foundation of mud. Tacit agreement, my ass. It’s liberal expectations no different than a bum walking in off the street and cleaning windows wanting and needing compensation for services rendered.

People need to keep their expectations in check and grasp that they’re sorely mistaken despite their needs and wants.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree that "first lady" is not a governmental position, though.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Underseer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46434147

Michelle Obama talks about imposter syndrome. This is coming from a person who had all the attention of a president without actually being the president. And her audience expecting her to deliver, and she no doubt, trying to.

It's cruel to give the first lady attention. She didn't ask for it. She's not the president. She hasn't done the required prep work.

And what’s the justification for that expectation? If someone breaks into my house while I’m asleep and cooks me breakfast, there’s going to be people expecting I compensate them for serving me.

Clearly, you are under just as much stress as any first lady. I think Dr. Zoidberg forgot to take into account that you're a special princess snowflake, and thus you break under much less stress than a first lady would, so you need to be held to a much lower standard.

 

[Toni]

Not the same thing. Let's say your girlfriend owns the house and you're just sleeping over, they cook her breakfast and expects you to compensate them for serving both of you. Nothing you asked for.

Being the president isn't a team job. And shouldn't be a team job. It's a one person job.

That in and of itself is an absurd claim. Part of the reason this presidency is failing, and why most of Trump's businesses fail, is his inability to work with others effectively.

I agree that "first lady" is not a governmental position, though.

It's a de facto position. First ladies have always been expected to also serve their country.

Also, I'm pretty sure Dr. Z doesn't really understand imposter's syndrome. Nor is he familiar with Michelle Obama's accomplishments prior to becoming First Lady. She's an extremely impressive individual in her own right. The fact that she was willing to set aside her own personal ambitions in order to provide the personal and moral support any person who is elected as President needs and deserves, to find a niche despite horrendously racism directed towards her, her husband and their daughters and to effectively advocate for her platform speaks volumes. Most of the FLOTUS in modern times have managed to handle their duties--real or perceived, with something like grace and graciousness. Like it or not, being POTUS means that your ENTIRE FAMILY is in the spotlight. It's worse now in twitter world but it existed as far back as I can remember, which is the Kennedy administration, and prior to that as well.

Whether we are right or not to expect so much from the spouse of the sitting POTUS is a different matter. It would be better for us all if we allowed public officials to have a private life and did not examine them nor their families under a microscope, looking for infractions.

Now, if we are talking about Melania Trump, she clearly didn't ask for or prepare for nor does she enjoy any aspect of being FLOTUS, except perhaps the racist adulation for bringing back beauty and grace to a white house that had been so tarnished by the occupation of a black family. I feel a bit sorry for her. Not that much, when I remember her birtherism. Then, I'm ready to let her face as much scrutiny as can be brought to bear.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not the same thing. Let's say your girlfriend owns the house and you're just sleeping over, they cook her breakfast and expects you to compensate them for serving both of you. Nothing you asked for.

Being the president isn't a team job. And shouldn't be a team job. It's a one person job.

That in and of itself is an absurd claim. Part of the reason this presidency is failing, and why most of Trump's businesses fail, is his inability to work with others effectively.

I agree that "first lady" is not a governmental position, though.

It's a de facto position. First ladies have always been expected to also serve their country.

Also, I'm pretty sure Dr. Z doesn't really understand imposter's syndrome. Nor is he familiar with Michelle Obama's accomplishments prior to becoming First Lady. She's an extremely impressive individual in her own right. The fact that she was willing to set aside her own personal ambitions in order to provide the personal and moral support any person who is elected as President needs and deserves, to find a niche despite horrendously racism directed towards her, her husband and their daughters and to effectively advocate for her platform speaks volumes. Most of the FLOTUS in modern times have managed to handle their duties--real or perceived, with something like grace and graciousness. Like it or not, being POTUS means that your ENTIRE FAMILY is in the spotlight. It's worse now in twitter world but it existed as far back as I can remember, which is the Kennedy administration, and prior to that as well.

Whether we are right or not to expect so much from the spouse of the sitting POTUS is a different matter. It would be better for us all if we allowed public officials to have a private life and did not examine them nor their families under a microscope, looking for infractions.

Now, if we are talking about Melania Trump, she clearly didn't ask for or prepare for nor does she enjoy any aspect of being FLOTUS, except perhaps the racist adulation for bringing back beauty and grace to a white house that had been so tarnished by the occupation of a black family. I feel a bit sorry for her. Not that much, when I remember her birtherism. Then, I'm ready to let her face as much scrutiny as can be brought to bear.

If she puts her personal career and ambitions aside to support her husband as president she's a bad role model for women. Isn't she? So deserves less attention. Don't get it

My whole point is that the family shouldn't be in the spotlight. I remember 15 years ago when the Swedish prime minster was unfaithful and eventually left his wife for his mistress. Nobody gave a rats are. It was his private life so people respected his privacy. The mistress was the president of one of Sweden's biggest corporations. It had zero impact on her job. That's how it should be IMHO. Why is USA any different? Or why should USA be any different?

 

[fast]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46434147

Michelle Obama talks about imposter syndrome. This is coming from a person who had all the attention of a president without actually being the president. And her audience expecting her to deliver, and she no doubt, trying to.

It's cruel to give the first lady attention. She didn't ask for it. She's not the president. She hasn't done the required prep work.

And what’s the justification for that expectation? If someone breaks into my house while I’m asleep and cooks me breakfast, there’s going to be people expecting I compensate them for serving me.

Clearly, you are under just as much stress as any first lady. I think Dr. Zoidberg forgot to take into account that you're a special princess snowflake, and thus you break under much less stress than a first lady would, so you need to be held to a much lower standard.

People should be held to a higher level when it’s warrented, but not merely because it’s wanted. I expect more from a First Lady, but my expectations are well grounded. For instance, some expect a First Lady to do certain things. I don’t. What I expect is if she does do something, then it should be done well and not half ass. In other words, if she so chooses to involve herself with political causes, then it should be done with grace and dignity that is becoming of a person in her situation.

I don’t expect people to vote, but if they do, they should do so responsibly and with genuine care and concern. I do expect people to serve jury duty when called upon to do so, and when they do, they should do so responsibly and with genuine care and concern. The difference between the two is the former lacks an obligation to act whereas the latter includes an obligation—a real, genuine, not made up but in fact codified duty.

I don’t have expectations of responsibility when it comes to someone getting a drivers license anymore than I have expectations of a first lady having a responsibility to the American people, but, just as I do have an expectation for drivers to drive responsibly if they so choose to drive, I have high expectations of a First Lady to act mighty responsibly IF she so happens to take on endeavors common to First Ladies.

 

[Toni]

It's a de facto position. First ladies have always been expected to also serve their country.

Also, I'm pretty sure Dr. Z doesn't really understand imposter's syndrome. Nor is he familiar with Michelle Obama's accomplishments prior to becoming First Lady. She's an extremely impressive individual in her own right. The fact that she was willing to set aside her own personal ambitions in order to provide the personal and moral support any person who is elected as President needs and deserves, to find a niche despite horrendously racism directed towards her, her husband and their daughters and to effectively advocate for her platform speaks volumes. Most of the FLOTUS in modern times have managed to handle their duties--real or perceived, with something like grace and graciousness. Like it or not, being POTUS means that your ENTIRE FAMILY is in the spotlight. It's worse now in twitter world but it existed as far back as I can remember, which is the Kennedy administration, and prior to that as well.

Whether we are right or not to expect so much from the spouse of the sitting POTUS is a different matter. It would be better for us all if we allowed public officials to have a private life and did not examine them nor their families under a microscope, looking for infractions.

Now, if we are talking about Melania Trump, she clearly didn't ask for or prepare for nor does she enjoy any aspect of being FLOTUS, except perhaps the racist adulation for bringing back beauty and grace to a white house that had been so tarnished by the occupation of a black family. I feel a bit sorry for her. Not that much, when I remember her birtherism. Then, I'm ready to let her face as much scrutiny as can be brought to bear.

If she puts her personal career and ambitions aside to support her husband as president she's a bad role model for women. Isn't she? So deserves less attention. Don't get it

My whole point is that the family shouldn't be in the spotlight. I remember 15 years ago when the Swedish prime minster was unfaithful and eventually left his wife for his mistress. Nobody gave a rats are. It was his private life so people respected his privacy. The mistress was the president of one of Sweden's biggest corporations. It had zero impact on her job. That's how it should be IMHO. Why is USA any different? Or why should USA be any different?

I don’t think that it is being a bad role model for one person to set aside his or her personal or professional ambitions in order to support their spouse/partner in a career of public service. This is exactly what many spouses do, perhaps most especially the spouses and partners of service members, police and firefighters, and all level of politicians and many governmental offices. In the various branches of the US services , the entire family is expected to live up to high standards especially of personal and professional conduct.

The US has had quite a number of present dents who carried on marital affaires whil in office, but none openly nor has any sitting president left his wife for his mistress. This s would not be looked upon as evidence of strong moral character, something that most Americans say they value in leaders.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don’t think that it is being a bad role model for one person to set aside his or her personal or professional ambitions in order to support their spouse/partner in a career of public service. This is exactly what many spouses do, perhaps most especially the spouses and partners of service members, police and firefighters, and all level of politicians and many governmental offices. In the various branches of the US services , the entire family is expected to live up to high standards especially of personal and professional conduct.

Hm... I never pegged you as a conservative. Your views strike me as misogynistic. Let's just say that if my wife gave up her career in order to support me in mine, I would have trouble respecting her. I'm attracted to strong women who have some ambition in life. Women who want to do their own thing. I wouldn't want a doormat for a wife.

The US has had quite a number of present dents who carried on marital affaires whil in office, but none openly nor has any sitting president left his wife for his mistress. This s would not be looked upon as evidence of strong moral character, something that most Americans say they value in leaders.

Then they would be wrong IMHO. Isn't it worse to want to leave your wife but stay in the relationship? If there's social pressure to stay married even when you'd rather not then why not assume all marriages are nothing but sham? In which case divorce isn't shameful and people can do whatever they like? Nah... there's no way you can spin that so it doesn't sound stupid.

A man who leaves his wife for a mistress has passion. It means he isn't dead inside. That's a kind of leader I want. It doesn't necessarily involve leaving a wife. It just means it's a man who will follow his heart wherever it takes him is a man worth following.

Why would a president not have a mistress? I assume they all do. And they shouldn't be shamed for it. I wouldn't trust a president who didn't have one. BTW, I think everybody in Europe was baffled about the Monica Lewinski thing. USA became a sad moralistic joke of a country.

 

[Toni]

I don’t think that it is being a bad role model for one person to set aside his or her personal or professional ambitions in order to support their spouse/partner in a career of public service. This is exactly what many spouses do, perhaps most especially the spouses and partners of service members, police and firefighters, and all level of politicians and many governmental offices. In the various branches of the US services , the entire family is expected to live up to high standards especially of personal and professional conduct.

Hm... I never pegged you as a conservative. Your views strike me as misogynistic. Let's just say that if my wife gave up her career in order to support me in mine, I would have trouble respecting her. I'm attracted to strong women who have some ambition in life. Women who want to do their own thing. I wouldn't want a doormat for a wife.

Putting aside one's ambitions in order to help your spouse is being a doormat?

It's not. It's called: taking turns. And reality, especially if there are kids or a promotion that involves making a move. One person gives up some of one's career ambitions in order to make the family work. I cannot stress enough that this is a big issue in the US when relationships sometimes falter when one is given an opportunity that requires relocating hundreds to thousands of miles away. As often happens in the military or in any kind of government service or when working for many corporations.

Ideally, after some period of time, the person who gave up some ambitions for the other will have the chance to be the first one in line.

I'm sure you'd have trouble respecting your wife, if you ever had one.

The US has had quite a number of present dents who carried on marital affaires whil in office, but none openly nor has any sitting president left his wife for his mistress. This s would not be looked upon as evidence of strong moral character, something that most Americans say they value in leaders.

Then they would be wrong IMHO. Isn't it worse to want to leave your wife but stay in the relationship? If there's social pressure to stay married even when you'd rather not then why not assume all marriages are nothing but sham? In which case divorce isn't shameful and people can do whatever they like? Nah... there's no way you can spin that so it doesn't sound stupid.

A man who leaves his wife for a mistress has passion. It means he isn't dead inside. That's a kind of leader I want. It doesn't necessarily involve leaving a wife. It just means it's a man who will follow his heart wherever it takes him is a man worth following.

Why would a president not have a mistress? I assume they all do. And they shouldn't be shamed for it. I wouldn't trust a president who didn't have one. BTW, I think everybody in Europe was baffled about the Monica Lewinski thing. USA became a sad moralistic joke of a country.

I've said that it is quite common for presidents to have mistresses but not publicly. However, to dump your wife to marry your mistress would demonstrate to an American that you had misplaced priorities, couldn't manage your own libido, lacked loyalty, and didn't know how to manage your personal life.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Putting aside one's ambitions in order to help your spouse is being a doormat?

It's not. It's called: taking turns. And reality, especially if there are kids or a promotion that involves making a move. One person gives up some of one's career ambitions in order to make the family work. I cannot stress enough that this is a big issue in the US when relationships sometimes falter when one is given an opportunity that requires relocating hundreds to thousands of miles away. As often happens in the military or in any kind of government service or when working for many corporations.

Ideally, after some period of time, the person who gave up some ambitions for the other will have the chance to be the first one in line.

I'm sure you'd have trouble respecting your wife, if you ever had one.

If you would voice that opinion publicly in Scandinavia you'd be burned at the stakes for misogyny. No Viking woman would submit to taking turns. They'd tell their husband to grow a pair and get on with it.

The US has had quite a number of present dents who carried on marital affaires whil in office, but none openly nor has any sitting president left his wife for his mistress. This s would not be looked upon as evidence of strong moral character, something that most Americans say they value in leaders.

Then they would be wrong IMHO. Isn't it worse to want to leave your wife but stay in the relationship? If there's social pressure to stay married even when you'd rather not then why not assume all marriages are nothing but sham? In which case divorce isn't shameful and people can do whatever they like? Nah... there's no way you can spin that so it doesn't sound stupid.

A man who leaves his wife for a mistress has passion. It means he isn't dead inside. That's a kind of leader I want. It doesn't necessarily involve leaving a wife. It just means it's a man who will follow his heart wherever it takes him is a man worth following.

Why would a president not have a mistress? I assume they all do. And they shouldn't be shamed for it. I wouldn't trust a president who didn't have one. BTW, I think everybody in Europe was baffled about the Monica Lewinski thing. USA became a sad moralistic joke of a country.

I've said that it is quite common for presidents to have mistresses but not publicly. However, to dump your wife to marry your mistress would demonstrate to an American that you had misplaced priorities, couldn't manage your own libido, lacked loyalty, and didn't know how to manage your personal life.

Wow. USA is fucked up. To me it would communicate the exact opposite. I wouldn't trust a man like that. It would be pathetic. I want a real man as a leader. Or real woman. A leader worthy of respect would be honest and true to themselves. Wherever it took them

 

[Toni]

Since the US comprises more than 10 times the land mass as does all of Scandinavia, commuting and managing a marriage is somewhat more complex in the US than in Scandinavia. Or maybe married people just like to spend time with each other more in the US.

People value different things. For myself, it speaks of a lack of character to maintain a mistress while married to someone else. I understand marriages end and people fall in and out of love and have ‘arrangements’ and all that. I don’t think much of the fallout that other people get to deal with when people don’t manage their personal lives.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Since the US comprises more than 10 times the land mass as does all of Scandinavia, commuting and managing a marriage is somewhat more complex in the US than in Scandinavia. Or maybe married people just like to spend time with each other more in the US.

Wow... those Russians. How do they do it? Considering they must never be able to meet their spouses. Your logic is broken. You've just stitched together non-causal relationships into chains. I assure you that Swedes also commute. You may have missed the memo. But Sweden has extremely low population density. Less than USA. So that's obviously not the reason.

I think it's just as simple as that being a stay at home mom in Sweden is frowned upon. It's socially unacceptable. It implies that you're a shirker and too lazy, alternatively too weak to have a proper job like a decent citizen. I think it's just a question of values. Women in Sweden are under tremendous pressure to be as strong and straight backed as men.

We do have a long paternity/maternity leave. For each kid the parents get two years off work to split. Paid for by the government. It's very common here that men use part of the paternity/maternity leave to stay at home with the children when they are infants. While not equal usage. It's not far from it. A father not taking some time to stay home with their child is weird over here.

Having nannies is also frowned upon. Kids are typically put in daycare.

People value different things. For myself, it speaks of a lack of character to maintain a mistress while married to someone else. I understand marriages end and people fall in and out of love and have ‘arrangements’ and all that. I don’t think much of the fallout that other people get to deal with when people don’t manage their personal lives.

The fundamental fault in your way of thinking is that it's the one with the higher libido that is always at fault. Or is the one who is expected to dial it back. As if that's possible. Being horny is not a crime or a sign of moral weakness. Being horny and not acting on it is, IMHO. Being boring is something we should be ashamed about. Being boring and dishonest with yourself are not virtues.

 

[steve_bank]

It was reported Malanya pusher Trump to run. She is where she wanted to be.

The reports are she acts like she has power and people should listen to her on policy. Somebody lost his job because of her.

She is essentially an airhead dilettante. No comparison to Michele Obama. She got caught blatantly plagiarizing a speech by Obama.

Lady Bird Johnson, Jackie Kennedy, Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton were all public figures. I was a bit young, Women did their hair like Jackie Kennedy. How she dressed had spoke had a social impact.

There is history of social causes by the first lady. Eleanor Roosevelt a prime example. She drove around the country supporting civil rights without escorts.

The current first lady is a flake who married an older wealthy guy who will die while she is young enough to enjoy his money.

 

[Toni]

Since the US comprises more than 10 times the land mass as does all of Scandinavia, commuting and managing a marriage is somewhat more complex in the US than in Scandinavia. Or maybe married people just like to spend time with each other more in the US.

Wow... those Russians. How do they do it? Considering they must never be able to meet their spouses. Your logic is broken. You've just stitched together non-causal relationships into chains. I assure you that Swedes also commute. You may have missed the memo. But Sweden has extremely low population density. Less than USA. So that's obviously not the reason.

I think it's just as simple as that being a stay at home mom in Sweden is frowned upon. It's socially unacceptable. It implies that you're a shirker and too lazy, alternatively too weak to have a proper job like a decent citizen. I think it's just a question of values. Women in Sweden are under tremendous pressure to be as strong and straight backed as men.

We do have a long paternity/maternity leave. For each kid the parents get two years off work to split. Paid for by the government. It's very common here that men use part of the paternity/maternity leave to stay at home with the children when they are infants. While not equal usage. It's not far from it. A father not taking some time to stay home with their child is weird over here.

Having nannies is also frowned upon. Kids are typically put in daycare.

People value different things. For myself, it speaks of a lack of character to maintain a mistress while married to someone else. I understand marriages end and people fall in and out of love and have ‘arrangements’ and all that. I don’t think much of the fallout that other people get to deal with when people don’t manage their personal lives.

The fundamental fault in your way of thinking is that it's the one with the higher libido that is always at fault. Or is the one who is expected to dial it back. As if that's possible. Being horny is not a crime or a sign of moral weakness. Being horny and not acting on it is, IMHO. Being boring is something we should be ashamed about. Being boring and dishonest with yourself are not virtues.

I don’t know if you are deliberately misinterpreting what I write or if you simply don’t understand what I wrote. Or geography, particularly US geography. I don’t really care.

I don’t agree that the person with a higher libido is punished. Affairs happen for many reasons, not just sex.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wow... those Russians. How do they do it? Considering they must never be able to meet their spouses. Your logic is broken. You've just stitched together non-causal relationships into chains. I assure you that Swedes also commute. You may have missed the memo. But Sweden has extremely low population density. Less than USA. So that's obviously not the reason.

I think it's just as simple as that being a stay at home mom in Sweden is frowned upon. It's socially unacceptable. It implies that you're a shirker and too lazy, alternatively too weak to have a proper job like a decent citizen. I think it's just a question of values. Women in Sweden are under tremendous pressure to be as strong and straight backed as men.

We do have a long paternity/maternity leave. For each kid the parents get two years off work to split. Paid for by the government. It's very common here that men use part of the paternity/maternity leave to stay at home with the children when they are infants. While not equal usage. It's not far from it. A father not taking some time to stay home with their child is weird over here.

Having nannies is also frowned upon. Kids are typically put in daycare.



The fundamental fault in your way of thinking is that it's the one with the higher libido that is always at fault. Or is the one who is expected to dial it back. As if that's possible. Being horny is not a crime or a sign of moral weakness. Being horny and not acting on it is, IMHO. Being boring is something we should be ashamed about. Being boring and dishonest with yourself are not virtues.

I don’t know if you are deliberately misinterpreting what I write or if you simply don’t understand what I wrote. Or geography, particularly US geography. I don’t really care.

I don’t agree that the person with a higher libido is punished. Affairs happen for many reasons, not just sex.

On the topic of non sequiturs

 

[Toni]

Wow... those Russians. How do they do it? Considering they must never be able to meet their spouses. Your logic is broken. You've just stitched together non-causal relationships into chains. I assure you that Swedes also commute. You may have missed the memo. But Sweden has extremely low population density. Less than USA. So that's obviously not the reason.

I think it's just as simple as that being a stay at home mom in Sweden is frowned upon. It's socially unacceptable. It implies that you're a shirker and too lazy, alternatively too weak to have a proper job like a decent citizen. I think it's just a question of values. Women in Sweden are under tremendous pressure to be as strong and straight backed as men.

We do have a long paternity/maternity leave. For each kid the parents get two years off work to split. Paid for by the government. It's very common here that men use part of the paternity/maternity leave to stay at home with the children when they are infants. While not equal usage. It's not far from it. A father not taking some time to stay home with their child is weird over here.

Having nannies is also frowned upon. Kids are typically put in daycare.



The fundamental fault in your way of thinking is that it's the one with the higher libido that is always at fault. Or is the one who is expected to dial it back. As if that's possible. Being horny is not a crime or a sign of moral weakness. Being horny and not acting on it is, IMHO. Being boring is something we should be ashamed about. Being boring and dishonest with yourself are not virtues.

I don’t know if you are deliberately misinterpreting what I write or if you simply don’t understand what I wrote. Or geography, particularly US geography. I don’t really care.

I don’t agree that the person with a higher libido is punished. Affairs happen for many reasons, not just sex.

On the topic of non sequiturs

Another term you don’t understand.