Smug parents.

I was just reading about film, About A Boy, in the TV guide. It says:
"A shamelessly irresponsible London bachelor poses as a single parent in
order to meet sensitive women. But when an oddball 12-year-old befriends
him as a result of his sham, the man and boy form an unlikely friendship
which changes both of their lives."
Is it really easier to meet a sensitive woman if you are a single father? I
was watching a group of women debating on television. They were complaining
about people who think that having a child makes you a better person. I
wonder how many women out there think that a man with a child is somehow
better than a man without a child because he has a child.

I don't need to have a child in order to be a better man. And I don't think
a woman is a better woman just because she has a child.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nigh.../mating/10638/

But somehow in the past few years, with the baby panic, the IVF horror
stories, celebrity-pregnancy chic, young families have become the new
entitled class. Pregnant women look sexier than their svelte counterparts,
and prenatal yoga beats ashtanga in cachet. The hottest guy in the park is
not the slender flappy-haired emo with the Martin guitar but the slender
flappy-haired emo with the Maclaren stroller.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer...g_parents.html

'Before I had kids, I was a selfish bitch from hell.' The words of the
fashion designer, Katharine Hamnett, in an interview published last week had
a sort of alluring robustness. Luckily for the world - the story continued -
she gave birth to two sons, thus unlocking her activism gene, allowing her
to empathise with the planet and protect it for future generations.

10 tell tale signs of smugness.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus...479057,00.html

Pumpkinhead wrote:
Is it really easier to meet a sensitive woman if you are a
single father?

Dunno - ain't never been a single father. Of the single dads I know
of, precious few seem to be in search of a "sensitive woman".

I was watching a group of women debating on television. They
were complaining about people who think that having a child
makes you a better person.

"Better" than what, one wonders.

I wonder how many women out there think that a man with a
child is somehow better than a man without a child because
he has a child.

Depends; I know a few single moms that tend towards men that've had
children based on the sometimes-true notion that such men will be able
to deal with their children as well. Single women without children
seem to tend to not care much one way or the other, IME, save that
some might think that a man that's able to care/provide for a child
might be able to care/provide for a woman in somewhat the same
fashion. Most of the childless females I know don't really believe
that though.

I don't need to have a child in order to be a better man.

I don't think I'd be all that better either, but it's hard to tell
since I haven't the experience.

And I don't think a woman is a better woman just because she has
a child.

Depends on whatchyer lookin' for.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nigh.../mating/10638/

[...]
The hottest guy in the park is not the slender flappy-haired emo
with the Martin guitar but the slender flappy-haired emo with
the Maclaren stroller.

That, OTOH, is completely inconsistent with my personal experience.
And FWIW, a Yamaha guitar works just as well as a Martin for my money,
though I fully admit I'm no "flappy-haired emo" (whatever the ****
that's supposed to mean).

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer...g_parents.html

'Before I had kids, I was a selfish bitch from hell.'

Heheheheh. Yah, okay - smoke another.

The words of the fashion designer, Katharine Hamnett, in an
interview published last week had a sort of alluring robustness.
Luckily for the world - the story continued - she gave birth to
two sons, thus unlocking her activism gene, allowing her to
empathise with the planet and protect it for future generations.

Sounds to me as if she's just using her children to extend the range
of "selfish bitch from hell" under the pretense of "activism". Like
Rosie whatsherface that was bitching about handgun ownership, but it
was okay for *her* bodyguard to carry one.
Ms Hamnett has a different cause: She seems to be opposed to
clothing with chemicals in them. And Tony Blair too, which is a
pretty much moot issue for at least a few years. She touts her
earth-friendly lines of clothing, ostensibly as her contribution
toward saving the planet. Which might be worthwhile, but chances are
that her designer clothing costs so damn much that only the
rich-n-famous will be making any significant contribution in that
regard - the rest of us poor slobs will have to wear our
chemical-laden knock-offs from KMart.
(Note: A quick price check shows that a Hamnett-designed ladies
sleeveless t-shirt goes for $40 US.)

Mikey (..apparently only rich people get to save the planet.)

Mike Given wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nigh.../mating/10638/

[...]
The hottest guy in the park is not the slender flappy-haired emo
with the Martin guitar but the slender flappy-haired emo with
the Maclaren stroller.

That, OTOH, is completely inconsistent with my personal experience.
And FWIW, a Yamaha guitar works just as well as a Martin for my
money,
though I fully admit I'm no "flappy-haired emo" (whatever the ****
that's supposed to mean).

I bet if you had a flappy-feathered emu, that would get some
attention.

Woman to man: "My, what a large emu you have. May I stroke it?"

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer...g_parents.html

'Before I had kids, I was a selfish bitch from hell.'

Heheheheh. Yah, okay - smoke another.

The words of the fashion designer, Katharine Hamnett, in an
interview published last week had a sort of alluring robustness.
Luckily for the world - the story continued - she gave birth to
two sons, thus unlocking her activism gene, allowing her to
empathise with the planet and protect it for future generations.

Sounds to me as if she's just using her children to extend the
range
of "selfish bitch from hell" under the pretense of "activism". Like
Rosie whatsherface that was bitching about handgun ownership, but it
was okay for *her* bodyguard to carry one.
Ms Hamnett has a different cause: She seems to be opposed to
clothing with chemicals in them. And Tony Blair too, which is a
pretty much moot issue for at least a few years. She touts her
earth-friendly lines of clothing, ostensibly as her contribution
toward saving the planet. Which might be worthwhile, but chances are
that her designer clothing costs so damn much that only the
rich-n-famous will be making any significant contribution in that
regard - the rest of us poor slobs will have to wear our
chemical-laden knock-offs from KMart.
(Note: A quick price check shows that a Hamnett-designed ladies
sleeveless t-shirt goes for $40 US.)

Mikey (..apparently only rich people get to save the planet.)

The damage a person does to the planet has little to do with
what sort of clothes he or she wears. Mostly it's a function
of how much he or she consumes in general.

We might think of overpopulated Third-World countries as
cesspools of squalor and ecological catastrophe---and they
are---but the fact remains that the average baby born in the
United States will consume as many resources and generate
as much pollution over his/her lifetime as 30 average babies
born in India.

Really, the worst things a person can do for the planet a

1. Be comfortable
2. Reproduce

It's fashionable for pseudo-environmentalists to focus on
token issues such as the fur trade or genetically modified
foods as a way to avoid having to confront the real issues
and make any real sacrifices.

A real environmentalist would, at a minimum, stop driving cars,
and use only enough artificial heat in the winter to keep the
water pipes from freezing. Anything less than that is merely
window-dressing.

-- the Danimal

Pumpkinhead wrote:
I was just reading about film, About A Boy, in the TV guide. It
says:
"A shamelessly irresponsible London bachelor poses as a single parent
in
order to meet sensitive women. But when an oddball 12-year-old
befriends
him as a result of his sham, the man and boy form an unlikely
friendship
which changes both of their lives."
Is it really easier to meet a sensitive woman if you are a single
father?

It's easier to meet sensitive women if you're Hugh Grant!

I like that movie a lot.

KC