View Full Version : oh dear lord...another one
Lysondra
05-13-2008, 07:43 PM
Ooooooooo I get it now. Sososososo since they're husbands are gonna leave them we're gonna have Jstrippers?
Perry
05-13-2008, 10:37 PM
A lot of people are uncomfortable with the way some religions treat their women.
Is it right for a 14 year old girl to marry a man over twice her age who already has 3 or so other wives? No, but Warren Jeffs has a right to freedom of religeon. Is it cool to make women go through child birth silently and feed infants barley water? Probably not, but Tom Cruise is going to. The same with covering women in burkas and forcing them to be escorted by a male in public and stoning them to death for being raped.
Sure, some women are happy, protected, and feel closer to God because of their very religeouse life styles, but many do not. And they aren't about to risk shame, exhile, or even death from the only community they know by speaking up for them selves.
Dottie Rebel
05-13-2008, 10:46 PM
Your own quotes don't seem to explain that. In fact, it sounds to me that a lot of the "feminists" on this thread seem to think that the Duggars should NOT be allowed to determine their own reproductive or religious ideals.
Read the quote of mine that you dragged into this and you'll see that I never said what the Duggars should or shouldn't do. I said that the argument that they are just following their religion fully is bullshit because the interpretation of ancient texts is so incredibly subjective. Not ONCE did I say they "shouldn't" do this or that or any other thing. Re-read through the rest of those quotes and you'll see that many of them are not commandments or value judgements but merely observations.
I think it is ironic that you feel "trapped" by feminism when it it because of feminism that you are able to make so many of the choices you've made in life, including the husband whom you feel is so inadequate. If you want a better provider for a husband, you are free to find one.
Lilah29
05-13-2008, 11:47 PM
I can barely afford to raise the three children I have now....
Now I'm on the verge (like, less than two weeks away) of marrying a man that I love dearly, but who will in all likelihood never be able to support me and let me return home with my children...and I'm stuck waiting and waiting until I can save up enough money to take a year or two off work to have another baby, since I know I'm never going to be able to return to the lifestyle that I miss so much.
I'm stuck in this hell, working until I finally die. THIS--what I go through on a daily basis--this is hell to me. This is NOT what I've ever truly wanted, and yet I have no CHOICE.
Women aren't free. We never have been, and unless we completely disregard our biology through lifetime contraception, we never will be. But at least these women have some measure of security.
ETA: I need to get back on some happy pills or something. The more I think about this, the more depressed I become. I suppose in the end, it'll either be medication or suicide.
You might reconsider your efforts to have more babies. You DO have that choice, and you seem to be a desperately unhappy person who couldn't help but spread some of that misery and powerlessness onto her child (especially a daughter).
The quotes you took from me were about population and the environment. You never answered the problems I pointed out in your first wildly incorrect post about that. So if you bring me into your case again, do it with a real argument please.
Paintbaby
05-14-2008, 10:03 AM
^^^Then you're telling me that the judgmental and vitriolic posts by women on this VERY THREAD in no way represent the feminist movement? That women should be allowed and encouraged to LIVE THEIR LIVES THE WAY THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO?
Your own quotes don't seem to explain that. In fact, it sounds to me that a lot of the "feminists" on this thread seem to think that the Duggars should NOT be allowed to determine their own reproductive or religious ideals.
Yeah, see, you're still not getting it. The Duggars can do whatever the hell they please. It is when they work to LIMIT THE CHOICES OF OTHER WOMEN that I have a problem. Speaking as a feminazi ( snicker!) , of course.
Oh, and didja read the real-life accounts of those women who left the lifestyle you so glowingly describe? I think their voices count, too. Sounds like they would have likes a bit more CHOICE in their situations.
Have an opinion, but make it an educated one. This frothing at the mouth at feminism is ridiculous, when clearly you know nothing about the movement. Feminsim did not cause your problems.
Clear now?
AudreyLeigh
05-14-2008, 10:24 AM
^^ Children dont get to make choices. When those kids turn(ed) 18 they had a choice to leave. Others have done it and they can too.
AvaAdore
05-14-2008, 12:28 PM
VAGINA
Its Not A Clown Car
:no:
Aubreyyy
05-14-2008, 12:29 PM
This has gotten WAY out of hand.
Morgan, I just wanted to say thank you for giving such an honest personal account... I know that can't be easy to do :)
Starfire
05-15-2008, 12:24 AM
morgantx thank you for sharing your experiences in this thread, I found it really interesting. It kind of breaks my heart that you think feminism is responsible for your bad experiences though. To me, it sounds like your husband was the real problem for you. :(
Lilah29
05-15-2008, 02:00 AM
morgantx thank you for sharing your experiences in this thread, I found it really interesting. It kind of breaks my heart that you think feminism is responsible for your bad experiences though. To me, it sounds like your husband was the real problem for you. :(
It's illogical reasoning. Feminism did not steer the economy such that in many cases both parents need to work. In fact, if anything, look to conservative politics that these fundamentalists support. Many women, including feminists, would be stay-at-home moms if they could afford it.
Dude bugging out on his responsibilities is not the result of feminism (more a bad choice in picking a husband/father).
Morgan_TX
05-15-2008, 06:39 AM
It's illogical reasoning. Feminism did not steer the economy such that in many cases both parents need to work. In fact, if anything, look to conservative politics that these fundamentalists support. Many women, including feminists, would be stay-at-home moms if they could afford it.
Dude bugging out on his responsibilities is not the result of feminism (more a bad choice in picking a husband/father).
I've been avoiding some of the replies on this thread, just because I don't want to fan the flames on some of this, but I want to explain my logic on this for a moment...
In a free market economy (which the U.S. most definitely does NOT have), the cost of goods and services is tied to what the market will bear. For example, if the average income in a town is $2,000 a month for a two-income family, then you're not going to see a lot of rent prices (for modest, middle-class homes) over about $500 a month. A landlord that charges $1,500 a month for a modest home is not going to be able to find a tenant for it and will lose money. But a landlord in a neighborhing town (where average income is $4,000 a month) can charge $1,000 for the exact same house, because SOMEBODY will pay it. Now the same is (theoretically) true in other things: a mechanic in Town A would have no customers if he charged $100 an hour, but a mechanic in Town B could easily charge that rate. So if you're making $2,000 in Town A, it's just like you're making $4,000 in Town B. This is the whole point behind "cost-of-living" changes and differences between towns.
(I want to point out that this really only works in an essentially "closed" economy. These days, companies are doing business worldwide, and the basic cost of goods fluctuates very little from coast-to-coast. That said, this was much more true in the 60's and 70's, when there was more entrepreneurship and small business ownership.)
Back when women first entered the workforce, two-income families had a decided advantage over single-income families. After all, prices for many things were still set at a rate that would allow single-income families to afford to survive. But suddenly, most families are able to afford much more. The houses in good school districts are sold under the auspices of a bidding war, because now these new dual-income families have enough money to bid up the price tremendously in order to get the "perfect" house for them. Single-income families can no longer compete, as the price for everything becomes higher. In other words, because these single-income families were now dual-income families, the median town's income went from $2,000 to $4,000 virtually overnight.
In addition to this, comparative wages have fallen substantially. Do you know why traditionally female occupations (like teaching and nursing) have historically paid far less than "male" occupations? Because "back in the day" women in the workforce fell into one of three categories: 1)single women (and sometimes, women who were recently married but had no children), 2)married women trying to bring in a little extra income to supplement their husband's salary, or 3)women whose children were all grown and needed something to keep them busy during the golden years. Therefore, "women's work" was always just "extra" or unneeded income and was paid accordingly. When women entered the workforce en masse, wages for virtually all industries fell. Families no longer "needed" a higher single income to survive--they could do just fine on two lower incomes.
It's passed the "tipping point", IMNSHO. Now, it is EXPECTED that a woman will work outside the home. She, of course, is still EXPECTED to handle the lion's share of housework and childcare. You see, it used to be that all you had to do in order to be a "good" mom and wife was to keep the house clean, do the laundry, cook good meals, interact frequently with your children, and participate in the P.T.A. That was it. Now, you have to do all of this, AND work 40+ hours a week. A woman who's a full-time homemaker (particularly if she doesn't have children yet) is considered "too lazy" to get a job.
Now how does this relate to the issue of divorce? In the 50's and early 60's, divorce WAS socially unacceptable. A man who divorced his wife would face a serious stigma. In many occupations, he would be passed over for promotions and raises. The fact that he divorced his wife made him "unreliable" and "irresponsible", and even when it wasn't stated, that was the impression people had of him. Meanwhile, the woman (now a single mom) was the source of charitable thoughts and feelings (i.e., "That poor woman... Left to take care of those babies all by herself, and meanwhile her husband ran off with his secretary.") She was sometimes even offered salaries far higher than the "norm" for her industry because of the "poor woman" attitude (and, in some other cases, because her boss believed her to be "more dedicated" because she was "more desperate"). So the man was ostracized and his career stagnated, while the woman was a source of pity and compassion. Additionally, many states DID have alimony in some form or another, in addition to child support, so a man who divorced his wife was in no way released from his obligations to support his family. This quite frequently served as a huge deterrent to divorce, as it once had a much greater financial impact on the man.
Now, women are EXPECTED to work and have their own careers, and to be independent and self-sufficient. If that were always the case, then the new society wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But when a woman sacrifices her career--her independence--in order to have more time and energy to devote to her family, she is viewed as lazy and selfish. When her husband divorces her and she's tossed out on the street, people tell her that she was stupid for being a full-time homemaker instead of a career woman. Courts lower alimony and child support and sometimes do away with alimony altogether, because after all, the woman should be earning her OWN way in the world--not being taken care of by her ex-husband. And there is no longer any social stigma towards divorced men, so they can take as many wives as they please.
So this is the logic behind me blaming feminism for the destruction of modern marriage. Look at it from a stripclub perspective: If a club has a hundred dancers, there is likely to be one or two girls (even in an ultra-clean club) that figure out that they can make more money by meeting guys outside the club for sex. In that situation (where they're the ONLY dirty girls there), they can bank off of this. But other girls start to notice this, and they start offering extras in the VIP room for a cheaper price. It's the basic premise of marketplace competition: the new girls offer the same services more conveniently and for a cheaper price. Suddenly, the value of a bbbj plummets because the girls are willing to do more for less. When you have a club of 100 and about 30 girls become whores, you pretty much are at the tipping point. At about 40 girls, extras are "expected", and you're considered a prude and a bitch for not going along with it.
That analogy may not make sense, but what I'm getting at is this: Back in the day, women were EXPECTED to stay at home, tend the household, and raise the children (just like strippers used to be expected to airdance). As more and more women entered the workforce (i.e., as more and more girls turned to extras), the value of the original services (homemaking OR airdancing) dropped steadily. When you pass the tipping point, you either have to jump on the bandwagon or make some MAJOR sacrifices (which may include finding a new club), because the balance has totally shifted. Once the new services are EXPECTED, women who used to perform just the old services are finding themselves having to work twice as hard for half the results.
Paintbaby
05-15-2008, 09:04 AM
That's still not quite it. The only reason WOMEN are expected to handle the childcare and housework is because the men EXPECT them too. So, blame the men with their sense of entitlement, not feminism. Feminism is trying to make things EQUAL between the sexes. It's the patriarchy that resists this. Because having women do all the drudge work is a sweet deal to most men, even if they refuse to recognize their unearned and undeserved privlege.
Seriously, go read those blogs I recommended. You'll get a much, much clearer picture of what I'm trying to talk about here. Because, although I know you are impassioned about your views, you aren't arguing in good faith because you don't know what you're talking about re: feminism. It isn't the garbage that the patriarchy has led you to believe it is--but that does keep women nicely at each other's throats, doesn't it?
ViolaStrings
05-15-2008, 09:10 AM
I have to say, a world of airdancing and staying home with the kids sounds awesome.
Morgan_TX
05-15-2008, 09:18 AM
That's still not quite it. The only reason WOMEN are expected to handle the childcare and housework is because the men EXPECT them too. So, blame the men with their sense of entitlement, not feminism. Feminism is trying to make things EQUAL between the sexes. It's the patriarchy that resists this. Because having women do all the drudge work is a sweet deal to most men, even if they refuse to recognize their unearned and undeserved privlege.
Seriously, go read those blogs I recommended. You'll get a much, much clearer picture of what I'm trying to talk about here. Because, although I know you are impassioned about your views, you aren't arguing in good faith because you don't know what you're talking about re: feminism. It isn't the garbage that the patriarchy has led you to believe it is--but that does keep women nicely at each other's throats, doesn't it?
I did actually go and peruse a few of those blogs.
But I do have one thing to say about this: feminism will NEVER work as long as we women are constantly against one another.
You know, I posted earlier in this thread about how if my house is not clean, *I* am the one who gets blamed for it, regardless of how many hours I'm working at the time. The problem is that the WOMEN are much worse about that than the men are. I've had female friends over to my house that have openly criticized me for the dirt in the corners of the kitchen floor, while men (being men) tend to pretty much ignore it. My ex-FIL used to get onto my ex-husband about not helping me out around the house.
But that, really, has nothing at all to do with feminism or conservativism or anything else--that has to do with the nature of women. Look at this thread. There is ONE woman who has made an adult decision to not use birth control, and she is called everything from a despot to irresposible to a bad mother to an environmental villain. Women will tear one another down no matter what. It may be the fat bitch female customer in the stripclub running her mouth about how she's so much hotter than you. It may be the career moms criticizing homemakers for being "traitors to women" and "not living up to their full potential" and "setting a bad example for your daughter", or it may be the homemakers criticizing career moms for "letting someone else raise your babies" or "not spending enough time with your children" or "being a bad mother". It may be non-religious women who criticize Christians for "teaching intolerance" and "brainwashing children", or it may be religious women who criticize the non-religious for "neglecting your children's moral education, thus leading them to a lifetime of degeneracy and tribulation".
And maybe that's the whole point of this thread. Does the patriarchy still oppress women? Of course! But women are, IMHO, far worse about dragging down their fellow women. We do more damage to one another than men do.
AudreyLeigh
05-15-2008, 09:21 AM
That's still not quite it. The only reason WOMEN are expected to handle the childcare and housework is because the men EXPECT them too. So, blame the men with their sense of entitlement, not feminism. Feminism is trying to make things EQUAL between the sexes. It's the patriarchy that resists this. Because having women do all the drudge work is a sweet deal to most men, even if they refuse to recognize their unearned and undeserved privlege.
Really? I would consider having to get up at 6am and drive 2 hours to work to deal with stupid incompetent people for 8 hours then drive home 2 hours arriving home at 7pm the drudge work.
In my eyes staying home doing housework and raising children is a luxury that not all women can afford to take advantage of. I love picking up, making beds, doing laundry. Pick kid up at 330 - gymnastics at 430 (on Thurs). Come home and have dinner ready at 7.
I get to do all that and get in some relaxation time, watch some tv, shop, whatever.
My husband comes home at 7 and eats. Takes a shower at 8 and is in bed at 9. THATS hell to me. He only gets 2 days a week to 'himself' and since hes an admin he still has to deal with work shit should it occur on his days off. Yup, no thank you.
Starfire
05-15-2008, 09:23 AM
Morgantx, I'm pretty sure the pre-feminist world was not the utopia you are making it out to be. Women have fought long and hard for equality (the fight is clearly not over) and quite frankly, I'm glad I have the opportunity to go to college and then into the work force. I don't WANT to spend my time keeping house and raising babies. Lucky me, now I have the choice. I don't have to get married young and start popping out babies right away (yay birth control and the feminist movement) in my opinion I would choose the current social climate over the "security" of the pre-feminist movement any day.
Morgan_TX
05-15-2008, 09:49 AM
Really? I would consider having to get up at 6am and drive 2 hours to work to deal with stupid incompetent people for 8 hours then drive home 2 hours arriving home at 7pm the drudge work.
In my eyes staying home doing housework and raising children is a luxury that not all women can afford to take advantage of. I love picking up, making beds, doing laundry. Pick kid up at 330 - gymnastics at 430 (on Thurs). Come home and have dinner ready at 7.
I get to do all that and get in some relaxation time, watch some tv, shop, whatever.
My husband comes home at 7 and eats. Takes a shower at 8 and is in bed at 9. THATS hell to me. He only gets 2 days a week to 'himself' and since hes an admin he still has to deal with work shit should it occur on his days off. Yup, no thank you.
This is kind of my point...
When I was a SAHM, my day looked like this:
5:00-->Wake up. Get dressed. Start breakfast.
6:00-->Wake up hubby. Get him in the shower.
6:30-->Wake up kids. Get them ready for school. Make sure they do morning chores.
7:00--> Breakfast for me & kids. Hubby leaves for work around 6:45.
7:45-->Take older kids to school.
8:00-->Clean up breakfast mess.
8:30-->Playtime with youngest child
9:30-->Morning "chores" or errands
10:30-->Make lunch.
11:00-->Lunch.
11:45-->Clean up lunch mess. Start dinner.
12:00-->Put little one down for nap.
12:30-->FREE TIME! Sewing, playing on the computer, reading, etc.
2:30-->Wake up little one.
2:45-->Pick up older kids from school.
3:15-->Help older kids with homework/chores.
4:30-->Finish dinner.
5:30-->Get ready for husband to come home.
6:00-->Greet husband. Eat dinner.
7:00-->Clean dinner mess while husband plays with kids.
7:30-->Start bedtime routine with kids.
8:30-->Kids in bed. FREE TIME!
10:30-->Go to bed.
In addition to the ACTUAL free time I had, I often managed to multi-task, doing things like reading while cooking or ironing, listening to foreign language tapes while in the car, etc.
My schedule when I worked an "admin" job?
5:00-->Wake up. Get dressed. Start breakfast.
6:00-->Wake up hubby. Get him in the shower.
6:30-->Wake up kids. Get them ready for school. Make sure they do morning chores.
7:00--> Breakfast for me & kids. Hubby leaves for work around 6:45.
7:30-->Take baby to daycare.
7:45-->Take older kids to school.
8:00-->Work.
LUNCH BREAK-->Grocery shopping.
5:00-->Leave work. Pick up kids from daycare.
5:30-->Get home. Start dinner while cleaning up breakfast mess.
6:00-->Greet husband. Eat dinner.
7:00-->Clean house while husband plays with kids.
7:30-->Start bedtime routine with kids.
8:30-->Kids in bed. Housework (laundry, cleaning, etc.)
...and I might not get to bed until 11 or 12.
Alia_of_the_Knife
05-15-2008, 09:51 AM
Morgan, I am sorry for what happened to you. But, one of my good friends who got divorced from his wife who was a stay at home mom, ended up having to pay alimony (which just ended), child support, and even had to buy his wife a car and house.
They are not Christians. They are agnostics. And they are far from conservative. They are card carrying democrats, and almost so liberal their brains are falling out. But the whole reason why he had to do this was that the courts told him too. Go back and sue his ass in court. Even though it is easier and less shameful to be divorced now (which I think is a good thing that I will get into in a second), you legally have the right to alimony and child support.
The reason why there is such a high increase in the number of divorced women isn't because men are abandoning them, it's because they (WOMEN) no longer want to be married. The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. Over 75% of divorces are initiated by the woman of the relationship. The Both of my grandmothers were stay at home moms. They were members of the "greatest generation ever". They both were christian, were married young to men who fought in WWII, and had lots of kids. And BOTH of them told me that they would have divorced their husbands in a heartbeat had they been around today. One of my grandfathers was an alcoholic and physically abusive. The other was a philanderer. I have talked to many other cookie baking grandmas who have confided to me the same thing. The idea of the "grass being greener" back in the day is a bunch of b.s. People were forced to stay married to a-holes simply to feed their children due to the social stigma of divorce, the inflexible divorce laws, and the limited opprotunities for women to be gainfully financially independent.
The reason why wages fell is that they were artifically high in the 1950s due to the reast of the world being bombed to hell after WWII. America was cock of the rock. It was automation, as well as a global economy, that has caused wages to fall, NOT feminism. Many jobs havn't been affected by feminism that much. Nursing and secretarial work is still majority female and engineering and construction is still majority male. Very few jobs have 50% female workers and 50% male.
I also feel that if I wanted to be a stay at home mom I could be. There is nothing wrong with that. It just doesn't appeal to me right now. I enjoying having the CHOICE to do so instead of being like my grandmothers who were stuck. I am also not against having a stay at home husband if I end up making more money than my spouse and he can watch the kids (if I ever choose to have any) when they are little.
And as for the Duggars, even though I don't agree with what they are doing, they certainly have the right to do so. As long as my taxes are not going to them I don't care what they do. And it's not like I am afraid a significant amount of Americans are going to follow their lead and cause a population explosion.
britt244
05-15-2008, 09:51 AM
^ that sounds so awful to me, though. not the housework part, but the "get ready for husband to get home" (what do you mean? what do you need to get "ready" for that takes a half hour?) and "greet husband." etc. like your life is meant to please him and do for him...
AlexxaHex
05-15-2008, 09:57 AM
I am another person who believes feminism is about choice and freedom to exercise free will. It's not about "going out and working", although some women like having the ability to do that. I consider myself a feminist and a SAHM for the most part. This is what I WANT to do. It is my choice to do that.
AudreyLeigh
05-15-2008, 09:58 AM
I dont know anything about feminism except what Ive read in this thread - which all contradicts itself so I cant make head or tail of it but.
Because of the feminist movement (correct me if im wrong) you now have the choice to work or stay home. In the past you had no choice. It was stay home only. It has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with you being with the wrong man. Im with a man who says if you wanna work - work. If not, dont and can afford for me to not work. Thats what people are trying to point out. The option is there - you dont HAVE to work. You CAN have the lifestyle you want just not with your current fiance.
I dont want this to be taken as a mean hearted post. Its not... Im just pointing out a couple things. In a lot of parts I agree with Morgan... with some not... Im middleground here.
britt244
05-15-2008, 10:00 AM
^^^Then you're telling me that the judgmental and vitriolic posts by women on this VERY THREAD in no way represent the feminist movement? That women should be allowed and encouraged to LIVE THEIR LIVES THE WAY THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO?
Your own quotes don't seem to explain that. In fact, it sounds to me that a lot of the "feminists" on this thread seem to think that the Duggars should NOT be allowed to determine their own reproductive or religious ideals.
oh, and for the record.. i know nothing about feminism. so my quote shouldnt be in there. i never said i was a feminist.
Morgan_TX
05-15-2008, 10:03 AM
Morgantx, I'm pretty sure the pre-feminist world was not the utopia you are making it out to be. Women have fought long and hard for equality (the fight is clearly not over) and quite frankly, I'm glad I have the opportunity to go to college and then into the work force. I don't WANT to spend my time keeping house and raising babies. Lucky me, now I have the choice. I don't have to get married young and start popping out babies right away (yay birth control and the feminist movement) in my opinion I would choose the current social climate over the "security" of the pre-feminist movement any day.
But this is exactly my point... You talk about having your "choice", and that's all fine and dandy, but YOUR choice has made it a LOT harder for other women who may CHOOSE something different.
In reality, it's a catch-22. Women who would prefer to work and have a career will often view housewives in a negative light. After all, these housewives present an image of women as being slaves to their men, and so men learn to expect that sort of service, so it makes it a lot harder for career women to find men who want to treat them as equal partners and do a fair share of the "women's work". On the other hand, women who WANT to stay home with their homes and children find it very difficult to do so, because the economy now is centered around dual-income families.
In all fairness, if we lived in a more socialist nation, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with women who need to or choose to work. There are nations that will give stipends to at-home parents of small children, and those same nations have government-subsidized daycare. That would actually provide OPTIONS to women. I've met a lot of women who work outside the home that WANT to come home, but they simply can't afford to. On the other hand, I've met women who were staying at home with small children because it didn't make financial sense for them to work and pay daycare, even though they missed the working world terribly.
There are two definitions of "equality": One definition is simply that all people have equal opportunities (i.e., women are not barred from any profession but are expected to meet the same standards as any man). The second definition is that of equal outcomes. Equal opportunities is a good start, and truthfully, we already have that for the most part. Women are eligible for hire in any position they're qualified for. But this does not equate to equal outcomes, for one very critical reason: women bear children, and in most cases, when a parent needs to take time off for child/elder care, it is the woman. So women have things like resume gaps (from taking time off to tend to the children) and are more likely to have things that may not be viewed favorably on their resume (like contract work, because it's more flexible, or small business ownership). They tend to be more likely to clock out at 5:00 on the dot because they have to pick the kids up from daycare, and they are less likely to want to do a lot of travelling because it takes them away from their kids. Women in this world have to choose between being a mom and having a career, and if they choose to do both, they are penalized in both endeavors.
It seems to me (from my admittedly limited knowledge of the feminist movement) that many of the early feminists were content ONLY with equal opportunity, but frankly, that just doesn't cut it. Equal opportunity does not always result in equal outcomes.
AudreyLeigh
05-15-2008, 10:05 AM
^^ Good points Morgan.
Alia_of_the_Knife
05-15-2008, 10:11 AM
There are two definitions of "equality": One definition is simply that all people have equal opportunities (i.e., women are not barred from any profession but are expected to meet the same standards as any man). The second definition is that of equal outcomes. Equal opportunities is a good start, and truthfully, we already have that for the most part. Women are eligible for hire in any position they're qualified for. But this does not equate to equal outcomes, for one very critical reason: women bear children, and in most cases, when a parent needs to take time off for child/elder care, it is the woman. So women have things like resume gaps (from taking time off to tend to the children) and are more likely to have things that may not be viewed favorably on their resume (like contract work, because it's more flexible, or small business ownership). They tend to be more likely to clock out at 5:00 on the dot because they have to pick the kids up from daycare, and they are less likely to want to do a lot of travelling because it takes them away from their kids. Women in this world have to choose between being a mom and having a career, and if they choose to do both, they are penalized in both endeavors.
True, I don't think anyone is saying that feminism waved a magic wand and that everything is great and equal right now. There are a lot of major kinks to be worked out. And I don't see housewives as slaves to men. (From a lot of the upper income housewives that I have known, they make the women on Desperate Housewives look like June Cleaver in comparison.) But I still prefer having a choice than being forced to stay with a man who is horrible just to feed myself and my children.
PrettyCurlieQ
05-15-2008, 01:20 PM
It seems like if you are having kids for normal human reasons, you'd stop before you hit double digits. I can't imagine these kids get anywhere near the attention they each need to make them grow into non-psychotic, functioning-in-the-real-world adults. Now, if they ARE trying to build an army, I guess it's working. I think they just want attention. I feel bad for their kids.
MojoJojo
05-15-2008, 09:19 PM
the duggars just announced their preg. with number 18! :O
IT'S NOT A CLOWN CAR
Andygirl
05-16-2008, 03:56 AM
I can't believe that any woman in this day and age would say that feminism has hurt her in any way. It's unbelievable. This thread is unbelievable.
TigersMilk
07-28-2008, 12:47 PM
http://www.duggarfamily.com/
Number 18 on its way! For some reason it no longer feels like yay another baby on the way and more like a oh knocked up again kinda thing.