View Full Version : Is there a way to learn to like kids?
Hopper
01-01-2011, 08:01 AM
Have you personally asked women why they entered the workforce? I have asked MANY older women (many incidentally NOT feminists) why they went back to work and the reason is because they were NOT happy being housewives. Yet by your comments you say women are happiest being housewives.
If those older women you know aren't feminists, does that mean you think they are sexists? Did you verbally attack them the way you are attacking me for not being feminist? If they are not feminists, they must be sexists, so you should not use their opinions to back your argument.
If you had asked women in the 1950s or before whether they were happy, many of them would have said they were. You probably wouldn't base your own opinions on that survey. On the other hand, women today, the ones you did survey, have been conditioned to believe the opposite. For the past 50 years, women have been conditioned via every media channel and social institution to believe the feminist line that housewives are boring, dreary, subjugated, unfulfilled, isolated, burdened with drudgery and worn out by childbearing. By now, many women older than you have been exposed to that social conditioning their whole lives and have known nothing else.
It makes no difference whether or not those housewives you surveyed were feminists themselves; they have still been through the heavy social influence of feminism, which shamed, ridiculed and demeaned housewives and promoted working women. Not all women under the influence of feminist conditioning are consciously feminist in their thinking.
Coupled with this conditioning were the social changes which shifted away from valuing marital relations and family life, toward a materialistic, consumerist, hedonistic and soulless lifestyle and the slow disintegration of the family-centred social order. The role of housewife, along with other social roles, was cheapened and banalised by all of these changes in attitude and lifestyle. This undermining of the family and the wife's role in it left housewives vulnerable to the feminist attack which followed in the 1960s.
You are aware that drug use among housewives back in the 50's and 60's was common, don't you?
Pharmaceutical drugs, not hard drugs. Did housewives use drugs BEFORE the 50s and 60s? Husbands also used drugs - they drank and smoked; why didn't they need "liberating"? The pharmaceutical cartels had achieved a controlling influence over the medical establishment by the 50s. They expanded their cartel globally soon after WW2. In the 1950s, under the influence this cartel had gained, pharmaceuticals became socially accepted and respectable via promotion in advertising and via doctors prescriptions. It wasn't because housewives just suddenly all became depressed.
Social factors also (as I mentioned above) increasingly put pressure on family life during those decades. These pressures were due to changes to the political and economic system. They did not solely affect houswives, but they did focus pressure on family life, which housewives were at the centre of. Housewives weren't drug-dependent medication cases, the industry merely sold them the idea that drugs were a respectable and harmless form of relief from daily pressures. Women didn't start becoming medication cases until after feminism changed our society.
I don't care if a woman works or stays at hme but it should be HER choice, not anyone else's, including her husband. Btw, I could have been married now if I would have been willing to be a housewife, but that's not my dream and never was.
And didn't I say it should be her choice? You are too busy ranting to read my words. You also said that previously you did not want to get married and now you do want to, just because you met the right guy. When you marry and have children, maybe you will change your mind about being a housewife too. What you want for yourself is not an argument, because what you want could radically change (as it did for marriage) and what you want for yourself doesn't apply to all women.
As for discrimination against the sexes you are comparing strip clubs discriminating against men with other sexism and it's not the same thing.
According to your own logic, it is the same thing. Both are based on biology. Your (and flickad's) main objection to that view is that it is discrimination based on nature or biology. You said that some churches you are crazy because they make arguments based on nature for women being housewives. The discrimination against men in strip clubs (i.e. hiring only female strippers) is based entirely upon nature and biology,.All forms of sexual discrimination are based on nature, because that is what sex is - a natural, biological order. Women's shelters, strip clubs, maternity wards, marriage, different clothing styles and sizing for men and women, are all forms of sexual discrimination and based on biology. But for some mysterious reason discrimination based on nature has to stop at the most important, central and basic institution of society, the actual reason there even are two sexes in the first place: reproduction and the sex roles in a family which support this task.
Clearly, the fact that a particular type of discrimination is based on nature does NOT make it unjust. In most cases, this fact actually makes it desirable. Of course, we are not complete slaves to nature and there are extenuating circumstances in many cases. No wife has to work in the home. But there is no reason why sex roles in the family are inherently undesireable and there are many reasons for why they are desirable.
At my last job I was paid less than my male coworker though I had more education. That is wrong and illegal. It's different than a club not hiring a male dancer. If you want to speak about discrimination in the clubs, I can tell you many stories of clubs that bypassed quality women managers to hire stupid guys with no experience and I'm sure I'm far from alone. So while clubs often only hire women as dancers, they often only hire men for management and that is wrong.
Yes they are different - and nothing to do with the idea that it is logical for wives to work at home.
Also, you are aware that there are different forms of feminism, aren't you? They are feminists who believe in much of what the other feminist groups believe in except they differ on issues like abortion. There are feminists who support pornography rights. I consider myself a feminist but disagree on various issues. The core belief of being a feminist is believing women have equality to men, and that I agree.
In other words, they disagree with small issues, but agree on the important ones, which are the ones were are talking about here. Feminists disagree on many things, but not on the inferiority of the role of housewife and the superiority of a career or other independent income. You obviously don't, so the disagreement of feminists about other things is beside the point in our debate. You are like all other feminists (extreme or moderate) as far as this topic is concerned.
Equality of the sexes is not the core belief of feminism. One does not have to be a feminist to believe that and one is not automatically a feminist just because he believes that. The contention between feminists and non-feminists depends not on whether they think women should be treated equally, but what they think equal treatment of the sexes actually is. You are not a feminist just because you believe in equal rights for men and women; you are only a feminist if you agree with the feminist definition of equal rights for men and women. The feminist view of equal rights for women requires a particular social order to exist, one in which both spouses work.
Women should be allowed to do whatever a man does, and yes I include combat and upper management.
Women should not be in military combat. The main reason is simply that men have a natural and extreme aversion to female suffering - more so than the same suffering by men. That is a natural instinct. In combat, that instinct could put the unit into unnecessary conflict in the event of the severe injury or capture of women by the enemy. It would affect morale. Another danger is that this instinct could become desensitised and carry over to behaviour toward women in other situations; not just for men in the military, but for all men.
The Israelis tried women in military combat roles for a while, but only because they needed the extra combat personnel, being numerically smaller than the collective forces of the enemy states bordering with them. They realised this was a big mistake after the first few women were captured by their enemy or were badly injured in combat. The effect on morale amongst the men was devastating to their war effort. So they pulled the women out. Also, FWIW, their enemies (Muslims) were gravely insulted that the Israelis sent women to fight them. I don't care what Muslims think, but it is pouring fuel on the fire.
So what if they get pregnant and have to take off 2 months or so?
Maternity leave is possibly a valid concession - if the employer so decides of his own volition. It is unfair to force an employer to pay a woman to look after her baby. He may be willing to do it if he so values the employee, but he should not be forced by law. It is also economically inefficient, having consequences not only for the company, but it's customers (to whom the cost is passed on), which would include many women, and so on to the rest of society. Really you are just taking from some women and giving to others. It is a way for women to get around pregnancy and working if they must, but it is not a desirable situation and certainly not a desirable arrangement for all wives to adopt. It is unjust to impose it by law upon employers and society as a whole. It is advocated by feminists as a way to ignore the biological differences involved in family life and as such is really an admission that their desired family order is the economically least efficient one.
Maybe it would be better if both parents were included in parental leave? That would make it fair.
What has fairness got to do with maternity leave? The husband is not pregnant and there is no reason for him to stop working. If he also has maternity leave, then it just means the economic burden on employers and society at large is doubled. In that way it is even more unfair than ony mothers having maternity leave.
Btw, there are many cases where a woman makes more than her husband. This is likely to be my situation if I marry the guy I love because I am more skilled. No way would I give up my education and skills to have him support me on a lesser salary. When I hear chauvinists like you state that being a housewife is the best I have to laugh because no it's not a good idea if the person with the larger salary quits their job to stay at home. I would be fine with a husband staying at home and the argument chauvinist makes about these guys are that they are "lazy" "sissies", etc. If someone should stay at home it should be the lesser salaried person, not automatically the woman.
Many housewives have husbands who earn incomes greater than you and your partner's incomes combined. You are not really laughing at housewives, you are laughing at your partner for having a lower income than yourself. I was comparing the roles of housewife and income earner with all other things being equal, including earning capacity.
Even if the wife is able to earn a larger income, whe is still not automatically the choice of income-earner for the family. There will also still be the complication of pregnancies interrupting the mother's job. And during infancy, for a number of years, children are psychologically attached to their mothers. Beyond that, women are also (generally) more innately competent at caring for young children. There is no point in the family having a bigger income if it HARMS the family. A career with as much responsibility as the one you want (upper management) is not the kind you can just take long breaks from without a lot of disruption. It doesn't all come down to money - the welfare of the family is what is important. It's not all about you, and if and when you do have a family, you will probably realize that.
Hopper
01-01-2011, 08:02 AM
Newsflash: I can disagree with Simone de Beauvoir without disagreeing with feminism. Not only has feminism moved on since its early days, it exists in different forms. Since I support equal rights for both men and women, by definition I fall within one of the strains of feminism. In this sense, feminism is about basic rights - the rights of women to enter into any field that a man can and for equal pay (as well as the same political rights and civil rights that a man has).
If you are just talking about one strain of feminism, then it's not the mainstream of feminism, which is what I originally commented about before you attacked me. Can you name this strain of feminism you belong to? Can you name a leading feminist in that strain, or any which defines feminism the way you do? Or did you just create it by yourself? Using this logic you could also join the KKK, because all they basically want is a "fair deal" for whites, and if you don't like the rest of what they say, you can just create your own "strain".
You agree with feminism's most basic tenet: Women belong in the workforce and not in the home. This is the reason you fall into the definition of a feminist, not your belief in equal rights. Feminist equal rights is not simply the treatment of women as equals, it is based on a particular view of what women's role in society should be, which excludes housewives. What makes one a feminist is not a belief in equal rights for women, but a particular interpretation of what equal rights for women is; and you support the feminist interpretation. Feminists occasionally pay lip service to women's right to be housewives if they wish, but all their other literature and policies directly or indirectly oppose it.
The Economist for Jan 2nd-8th 2010 ran three articles on women's "advances" in the workforce. The Economist is a mainstream periodical. These articles complain about the under-representation of women in the workforce. Women are now 50% of the workforce, but they are not equally represented in all strata of the workforce. So the underlying assumption is that as many women as men must be in the workforce at all levels. Where does that leave the women who would be housewives? There cannot be an equal number of working women as men, or an equal proportion of working women as men, if some women are housewives, unless there is also an equal amount of house-husbands.
There is a big difference between women having an equal right to enter the workforce and desiring an equal number of women to enter the workforce. And that is the difference between what most people think "equal rights" means and what feminists mean by it.
A large portion of those articles in The Economist addresses the obstacles to women entering the workforce, particularly the higher levels, which all arise from the fact that women bear children and that children require care and some working women desire tiime off from work to care for their children themselves. So the "oppression" never did come from society, it came from our biology. After 50 years of feminism, we still haven't found a way around it, but feminists still insist that their way is better.
Equal pay is not a right. It is the employer's right to decide what he pays his employees, because it is his money and his company. If his female employees are of equal value to him as his male employees doing the same work, there would be no reason for him to pay her less. He would not wish to risk losing her to another employer (who may be a competitor in the same market) who is willing to pay her what males get. There may be some gender-specific reasons to pay less in some types of jobs. In those cases, it would be fair for him to do that. Only feminists ignore sexual differences - it doesn't work in the real world.
Beauvoir was not necessarily talking about passing a law compelling all women to work. There are other ways to compel women to work than passing a law. Just the fact of passing legislation and providing government services and subsidies which deal with the natural obstacles to women working imposes this choice on all women to a great extent. It effectively takes from the income of families of housewives and gives to the families of working women. In this way, being a housewife is penalized and working is rewarded, setting a direction which women will tend to follow out of economic incentive or even necessity. The government rewards working women at the expense of housewives. So if you agree with that, you do agree with Beauvoir. You don't need your own "strain" of feminism, because you agree with it's founders.
I would personally find it oppressive to be a housewife. Not everyone does, but many of us do. If you think it is so ideal, perhaps you ought to try it.
Nobody could force you to be a housewife, so it could not be oppressive. It's your choice whether to be one. As the male, it would not normally be my place to stay at home, so I probably won't be trying it. That is my point here, in case you missed it. But if my own particular circumstances did dictate that I be the home-maker and full-time child-rearer, I don't see why it would be "oppressive".
While it is true that legislation did not specifically state that women had to stay at home, women were debarred from various professions and from universities at one time. They also received wages which were a fraction of the male wage. Combined with social pressure, these factors were enough to force most women into the home.
I don't agree with those laws either. I'm a libertarian. Individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves. Feminism doesn't allow that.
Birth control was also non-existent at one time. The advent of the Pill made it easier for women to leave their traditional roles and, tellingly, they did so in droves when given the option.
After a decade of use, feminists led protests AGAINST the pill. Not because they didn't want women to use it, but because the version then available was unsafe. Women died in droves because of the pill. Even today it has health risks and side-effects. The pill was first pushed by Margaret Sanger, not because she wanted to liberate women, but because she wanted it to be used to control reproduction of "unfit" women. Feminists advocated it because they wanted women out of the house and into the workforce. The pill was just another way for them to ignore the biological differences between the sexes for the purpose of reorganising society accordind to their own political agenda. Obviously they did not care enough about women to test it properly before it caused harm. They only took leadership of the protest againt the pill after the health risks became to big and widely known to ignore. They didn't care about women, they cared about women fitting into their political agenda.
Women did not have the same rights as men before feminism. They did not have the right to vote, for instance, before many years of agitation by first wave feminists. As I said before, they did not have the right to equal pay for equal work or to enter various professions. They were not allowed into many pubs. Et cetera.
I have pointed out before that the importance of the right to vote (like democracy) is over-rated, since in a truly free society voting does not affect one's rights. It does affect the rights of certain groups when the government is given the power to favour certain groups over others, in the numerous ways in which it does today. That is an unfree society, because group favoritism necessitates the confiscation of money from one group to benefit another group, and the making of laws which give some groups political and economic advantages over others.
Since you are in law, you should read "The Law", by Frederic Bastiat (1870). Those "first wave" feminist suffragettes obviously were not very
enlightenned, since they were not aware of the principles Bastiat simply explained in this book, and which by their time had already for decades been a major tenet.of liberal political philosophy.
http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf
"First wave" feminism was not the same as "second wave" feminism.
As for being allowed into pubs, it is up to the owner of the pub who is allowed in. There are groups and establishments who don't allow men in.
Your views are akin to racism because there are different forms of racism. Ever hear of the oxymoron 'separate but equal'? This is what your views amount to. You think that there is a role for women and one for men simply by virtue of gender.
I said it is a natural and practical role for women, suggested by their innate qualities and functions (most importantly reproductive ones). That is not segregation of the sexes. Husbands and wives live in the same house, did you know? Nor is it subordination of women, like racial segregation often is (not even racial segregation is necessarily for the purpose of subordination). It is also not discrimination based on imagined differences, as with racism; it is discrimination based on real differences. It is not imposed discrimination, since women are free to decide what they should do. The sexes have important differences; people of different races do not. However, women and men are otherwise basically similar and one sex is not basically inferior to the other. Family support roles for men and women are just division of labour, a principle we apply all througout society. They are not a form of subjugation.
Yes, you are entitled to your views, but I am entitled to mine and am further entitled to critique yours if you insist on putting them out there on a public forum.
You are not just criticising my views, you are attacking me for expressing my views. Actually, you are mostly just attacking me for expressing my views - you have not really criticised them, only denounced them as "sexist", which is not an argument. It is just a way to block rational discussion of an issue. Feminists use "sexist" as the last word, even though it is a meaningless word outside of the context of feminist ideology. You can moralise without attacking me personally just for stating my ideas.
All I have said is that I oppose feminism and that husband and wife logically (though not in all cases) have different roles in supporting their family. That's all. There is nothing oppressive about that. For centuries, it made a lot of husbands and wives very happy. It still does. I don't see what there is for you to criticize; which is probably why you have attacked me instead of criticizing.
And whether or not I would want to know the hoardes of female chauvinist pigs of whom you speak, don't you think it's odd that I haven't come across any, if they exist in such numbers? I mean, I wouldn't want to know any wingnuts either, and I do come across those now and then.
How can you call a woman who supports "male chauvinism" a female chauvinist? Kellydancer says she knew a whole church congregation of "female chauvinist" women. Like all feminists, you are really just patronizing these women by calling them "chauvinists" or "brainwashed". This shows up your hypocrisy. Feminism is supposedly about freedom for women to decide what is good for them, but women who choose to be housewives don't know what's good for them.
A relative few women (and men) think wholly as I do today. But then, few men and women think clearly about the subject at all or have good knowledge of the facts. They get their ideas the same place you do: TV. Consequently, most people today are scared to speak or even think as I do. Therefore what most people think is no reflection of what is actually true. The two are often very far apart. But there are many women who at least have decided that housewife is the best role for them. They wouldn't dare suggest that it is the best role for other women. They have to act like they are special cases. Their thinking is bound to still be under feminist influence in other ways, however, because that influence is everywhere.
You are showing your bias against housewives. A woman is a "female chauvinist pig" just because she believes that housewife is the best role for her. If somebody here had said that all women should be in the workforce and not housewives, would you have reacted with such hostility and outrage? You would disagree, if you said anything at all, but you would not berate the person who said it as long as you have berated me over what I said. What is the difference between forcing women to be housewives and forcing women to earn incomes? Both should be equally unjust. But you are more outraged by the first simply because it is based on sex. But the reason for why someone is forced to do something is nothing to do with how unjust it is. It is only the force itself which is unjust. So "sexism" is not really anything to do with injustice. If nobody is being forced, there is no injustice - no restriction of basic rights or liberties.
Hopper
01-01-2011, 08:03 AM
There was also legislation in line with Sanger's views during her lifetime. The infamous case of Carrie Buck is one example of it in action. The overarching values, then, were very much in line with Sanger's views at that time, even if dissenters existed. Rarely if ever has there been complete homogeneity at any point in history.
That doesn't make Sanger okay for supporting it. She didn't just support that legislation, she led the movement to make it. Neither Sanger's own views or the legislation came from the "overarching values" of society at that time. Sanger was leading the movement for making such legislation for taking it much further, applying it to all of society. The legislation was tolerated probably because it did not affect a large section of the population, and then probably only people from the lower classes or minorities. Many of the practices, such as sterilisation, would have been hidden from public view, in institutions such as orphanages and sanitoriums, so that most people probably were not even aware of it. Because of some prejudices against defective people, the people would have been apathetic toward the legislation. Most churches did not support eugenic ideas, however, and at that time the churches had a wide influence on the general population.
Hopper
01-01-2011, 08:04 AM
I too would like to meet all these radical feminists that Hopper has met. I've been a member of feminist organizations and most I've met have not been these man haters Hopper claims they are. Oh sure a few were but generally they're not given much respect by others because they are nuts. In fact easily 90% of every feminist I've met has had a husband or boyfriend. I know there are lesbian feminists but haven't met many of them either (and the few I've met haven't been the radical ones).
I didn't call feminists "man haters", you did. The point to feminism is not hatred of men, it is opposition to roles for married men and women. Feminism uses division, conflict and enmity between the sexes to achieve it's aims (a divide and conquer strategy), and it made a lot of women into man-haters, but that was not the aim itself. "Radical" refers to the social aims of feminism, not it's attitude toward men.
Sadly, there are guys like Hopper and it's scary.
The previous paragraph proves you don't even understand what I am saying. So does the next one.
I had a guy friend who was brainwashed by his church that proper women stay at home so he looked for that, which he found in a 24 year old. His church was so chauvinistic that they were more like a cult. They would preach this hatred against women.
That is nothing like what I said. I realize that society is not composed of neat and tidy boxes into which everybody fits. But feminists went in the opposite direction and completely denounced the role of housewife. It is the logical role in many cases and also a potentially rewarding one, as well as one suited to women's innate qualities.
If you are characterizing me as a woman-hater from my comments here, I can't trust what you say about those church people either. Obviously you are off balance.
If a man who thinks like me is a "woman hater", then what does that make women who think like me? You said they are brainwashed, but doesn't it also logically follow that they are "women haters" too - they hate themselves? You explain my views as hatred of women, because I am a man, but how do you explain it when women think the same way? Logically they would have to be woman haters too. How could you even brainwash women into hating themselves as a gender? As well as being patronizing, this attempt of yours to explain away my views actually shows how unrealistic are your own views.
The alternative that you don't want to consider is that you are brainwashed. That is far more likely, because for about fifty years feminists have had a huge influence in the media and all other institutions, right to the very top. This is the reason you and many others class people like me as crazy - you have simply heard nothing else but the feminist line your whole life; and unlike me, you never ventured to question it or inform yourself about the dissenting side, or even about your own side.
So the more I respond with reason and facts here, the more you repeatedly recite the feminist litany of mindless slogans and catch-words, not even being familiar with the actual ideas behind the view you are defending.
The funniest tirade one of their youth ministers got on was how women on tv in the 50's were proper housewives because "God wanted it that way". They didn't like when I spoke up and stated those women playing wacky housewives on tv were in fact career woman and in many cases (Lucille Ball comes to mind) were very smart business women.
He was talking about the housewives portrayed in those TV shows, not the actresses who portrayed them. He probably recongnized the necessity for many women to have careers, including actresses. You probably just made yourself look crazy. I don't know first hand how crazy this church is, but I do know that you are being irrational and that I only have your word that the church is crazy.
Hopper
01-01-2011, 08:04 AM
I've met a few women like him and to me they are brainwashed. One said her lifelong dream was to be a stay at home mother but the "feminists" ruined her dream. I had to tell her that no, they didn't ruin her dream the economy did. I have met housewives who were feminists so I don't think the two are always exclusive. I've met women who hate to call themselves feminists because of the "man haters", and women in between. I always tell women that feminism is not the idea that women hate men, it's the idea that woman are equal and should have the same options as men..
Feminism has had an affect on our economy, creating some of the economic reasons for why many women don't work at home. Many wives take on jobs because they have to, not because they want to. Many of these don't become career women, they just take on a regular wage job.
Feminism is part of the economic reason for many women having to work now. Via the government, feminists have taken money from housewives to give to working women for daycare, maternity leave, and also for numerous feminist government programmes, services, offices and organisations which women who wish to be housewives are forced to pay for.
The number if women in the workforce increased to its present number due to the influence of feminists, who denounced the role of housewife and promoted careers for women. Around fifty percent of the workforce is now female, meaning that most wives are working and that the work force has nearly doubled from what it was before the popularity of feminism. This increase has bidded down wages and salaries. The increase in the average household income due to both spouses working has bidded up the cost of living. These two factors have made it harder for single-income households, i.e. made it harder for women to work at home to support their family in that role.
Some housewives are "also feminists" because they have been heavily conditioned by feminism and because of deliberate confusion about what feminism actually is. However, those women you are talking about obviously don't follow the basic tenet of feminism: get out of the house and into the workforce.
Feminists did create division and enmity between the sexes as a tool for social change. They caused a lot of unnecessary resentment and alienation between men and women. This hatred did ruin a lot of women's dreams, because it ruined their relationships with men. In many cases it led to marriage break-ups. The way the family courts are conducted has encouraged women to leave their husbands, knowing that they could easily take the house, the savings, the kids and part of the man's income.
The fact that women now can choose whether to be a mother is a feminist idea. I never understand these women who always cut down feminists and they have careers. They don't realize that without feminism they would be almost forced to be housewives whether they wanted it or not.
Any of the social stigmas and legislative measures which, before popular feminism, prevented a woman from choosing a career could have become phased out without the adversarial, ideologically and politically motivated attack by feminists on our whole social order. Society could have become more libertarian and enlightened a lot more quickly and peacefully without the divisive strategy used by feminists to further their political and social agenda.
The fact that even career women criticize feminism means they recognize that feminism is not just about giving women choices, but a radical social agenda. Feminists did not want to give women options, they wanted women out of the house and into the workforce.
Hopper
01-01-2011, 09:39 AM
The liberated, enlightened post-feminist woman, fifty years on. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/36/23/e692828fd7a03d216c9ff010.L._AA240_.jpg
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0330487396.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_V1056433474_.jpg
http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n24/n123524.jpg
At least we can laugh about it.
Kellydancer
01-01-2011, 12:40 PM
Hopper, you are completely a nut and I refuse to read all of that mumble jumble. I will say that no, I have intention of ever being a housewife. By that same token maybe you will decide to stay at home? Since you are a man (or a troll) you have no idea what it means to be a female in this society. I do, including the fact that yes women are pressured to stay at home though they have no interest in. Women are still paid less than men for doing the same thing. No, women shouldn't be forced into ANY role, whether housewife or career women, neither should men.
Btw, I know several women who served in the military who could kick a man's ass. They should be allowed in combat. I also know men who never should join the military.
As for maternity leave, employers should offer it to both mother and father. Studies have shown that men who take leave after a birth have a closer bond with the baby. I never said anything about it paid by taxpayers, I'm talking EMPLOYERS. Many btw do give men leave now too. I'd never have a baby unless the guy was not a chauvinist pig. Only men wh believe in equality. Both the man I want to be with and me agreed that if we have kids both will take leave and both will work while the grandparents watch during the day.
I just comfort in knowing with your attitude you probably will never have children. I can see through men like you and walk on by. I'd rather be alone than with a sexist pig like you.
penandink1019
01-08-2011, 09:31 AM
Hopper, you've posted 1000-plus times on this site. May I suggest, however, you pick up a history book. Your statement, "The number if women in the workforce increased to its present number due to the influence of feminists, who denounced the role of housewife and promoted careers for women," is incorrect. WWII was the catalyst for American women joining the out-of-home labor pool.
ArmySGT.
01-08-2011, 10:52 AM
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Makes%20me%20laugh/Awesome/Ohhalloween.jpg
Kellydancer
01-08-2011, 02:49 PM
Hopper, you've posted 1000-plus times on this site. May I suggest, however, you pick up a history book. Your statement, "The number if women in the workforce increased to its present number due to the influence of feminists, who denounced the role of housewife and promoted careers for women," is incorrect. WWII was the catalyst for American women joining the out-of-home labor pool.
Yep, then when the men came back women were pretty much forced back into the housewife roles. Because they had experienced freedom it gave birth to the feminist movement. I don't know where men like him got this idea that all feminists were forcing women into the workforce. They never were, just the idea that women could have a career. This helps women and even men. I know many men who have told me they are thrilled that women can help with bills along with them, and even that some women make more than them. I know for myself I'd make a terrible housewife.
Hopper
01-08-2011, 09:00 PM
Hopper, you've posted 1000-plus times on this site. May I suggest, however, you pick up a history book. Your statement, "The number if women in the workforce increased to its present number due to the influence of feminists, who denounced the role of housewife and promoted careers for women," is incorrect. WWII was the catalyst for American women joining the out-of-home labor pool.
Thanks genius.
http://www.gylf.se/blog/media/Rosie-the-Riveter_000.jpg
That was a temporary measure, like rationing, war production (where most of those women's jobs came from), conscription, enemy profiling etc. When the war was over and the men came back, the women went back to being housewives. Women didn't do those jobs because they wanted to, they did them because they had to - because there were no men to do them. Women didn't leave their homes and fill the factories for new economic opportunities and career fulfilment. Though maybe some enjoyed making munitions on assembly lines all day.
WW2 was 1939-1945. Second-wave feminism got going in 1963, with the publication of the first popular feminist book - "The Feminine Mystique", by Betty Friedan. So from for at least a decade after WW2, the number of women in the workforce was not increasing. A new generation of women had arrived by that time and the women who had worked during WW2 were already middle-aged or elderly.
Feminism was the driving force behind so many married women entering the workforce. If it was WW2, then why did feminist activism arise at all, eight years later? Why are they still complaining about there not being enough working wives today, 50 years later? Even if WW2 had been a catalyst (and I agree it made some contribution), feminism was still the driving movement. Are you seriously saying feminists were not responsible for wives entering the work force? Do you not know that is their main agenda? Do you think it happened by itself?
Next you'll be telling me WW2 was the catalyst for Japanese-Americans choosing to relocate to prison camps in the desert. This is more evidence of how far backward people are willing to bend to defend the conventional view of feminism.
WW2 wasn't the first time women worked outside of homes. For all of modern Western history there have been women working as domestic cooks, maids, servants, governesses, seamstresses, farm laborers, in factories, in nursing and hospitality and then there are the numerous women who worked alongside their husband and children in family businesses. Women have always worked. Feminism gave women nothing they did not already have.
The difference is that before feminism, women who had to get jobs outside of the home, because their husbands' incomes were not great enough or they had not yet married, had less social status. Being able to tend their own home and family was a source of social prestige for them, not oppression and misery. Were wives just stupid all those centuries, or did they actually enjoy it?
That's 1000 times in two years, BTW. An average of two posts per day doesn't mean I live here.
Hopper
01-08-2011, 09:20 PM
Yep, then when the men came back women were pretty much forced back into the housewife roles. Because they had experienced freedom it gave birth to the feminist movement.
Took a while didn't it. Freedom to do what? Work on assembly lines all day? They still had to do housework outside of that. Why would they need to be forced to give up assembly line work on top of housework? Would they prefer it to housework? Should the men have stayed home to do it, or should they have paid for daycare for their children?
I don't know where men like him got this idea that all feminists were forcing women into the workforce. They never were, just the idea that women could have a career.
I've already shown that the feminist agenda is to force women into the workforce, not just give them a choice (which they always had, and in most cases rejected when they could) and how they have achieved this. Not all working women have careers. Not all men have careers.
This helps women and even men. I know many men who have told me they are thrilled that women can help with bills along with them, and even that some women make more than them. I know for myself I'd make a terrible housewife.
Today families need two incomes, for various economic reasons, which ultimately are all to do with various forms of government intervention in every area of society and individual life. I have explained how part of that arises from feminism. I explained how just the fact that so many wives do work creates an economic necessity for all wives to work - once society as a whole moves in a certain direction, it becomes necessary for all individuals to follow. The dominant system largely determines what most benefits all individuals to do.
The other reason that men are "thrilled" is that today most people put material comfort, much of it excessive, wasteful, unnecessary and stupid, before other aspects of family life. So it's "great" that their wives work and have less children - now they can buy a boat, put a rear deck on the house, get a home theater system and a wall full of DVDs and CDs to play on it, and on and on. But it bites them in the ass because a bigger supply of labor in the market bids down wages and a larger household income bids up prices and the cost of living. Brill!
penandink1019
01-08-2011, 09:46 PM
Hopper,
I've no intention of debating you. I'll admit you've got a special kind of raw courage to be a sexist jerk on a site designed for, and populated by, women. (Your clear lack of experience with women is obvious, but that's a sidebar conversation.)
Cheers, baby.
Kellydancer
01-08-2011, 11:59 PM
Hopper,
I've no intention of debating you. I'll admit you've got a special kind of raw courage to be a sexist jerk on a site designed for, and populated by, women. (Your clear lack of experience with women is obvious, but that's a sidebar conversation.)
Cheers, baby.
Yeah he's probably one of those guys (I know a few) who blame feminists for him not getting laid. Feminists get blamed for everything. He reminds me of this chauvinist pig I met years ago who told me that women love housework and all women want to be housewives but the government forces them to work. When I said I love to work he said I was brainwashed.
Btw, Penandink you rock.
Hopper
01-09-2011, 01:22 AM
Hopper, you are completely a nut and I refuse to read all of that mumble jumble.
The nut charge is a serious one, which only a real nut would make lightly, with no substantiation and without even reading what the other person said. There is no way you can know it is "mumble jumble" without having read it. It is entirely a carefully reasoned response. Perhaps what you mean is that because you are only capable of thinking in slogans, catch-phrases and labels, it is too complex for you to read. That is all you have posted from the beginning of the "debate". I never was given a hearing. You attacked me with raving-crazy feminist screeching from when I first mentioned feminism in one of my posts this thread.
But I am not disappointed that you won't read my posts. I am really responding to your posts for thinking people who read this thread, not necessarily you. If you would only stop responding to them, the debate would improve.
I will say that no, I have intention of ever being a housewife. By that same token maybe you will decide to stay at home?
What you intend is irrelevant. Of course you don't intend to be a housewife. But you had no intention of being married either, before you met someone you want to marry. You said you were completely opposed to getting married then. When you have children, by the same token, you may wish to stay home and care for them and rely on your husband to earn enough income for your family to get by. You may decide to forgo wealth and prestige for other aspects of your children's welfare than purely material ones.
Even feminists are forced to admit to the difficulties of both spouses working and also caring for children. When it actually happens to you reality will knock and all your woolly feminist thinking will need to be re-thought. The purpose of a family is to raise children and the level of income is not the most important thing in achieving that aim.
Since you are a man (or a troll) you have no idea what it means to be a female in this society. I do, including the fact that yes women are pressured to stay at home though they have no interest in.
So what do all the feminist men know about women, since they are also not women? Not all women I know think like you. Maybe they are brainwashed or "woman haters"? Women stopped being pressured to stay at home decades ago. The Economist of Jan 2010 certainly wasn't pressuring women to stay at home.
Perhaps some women are pressured to stay at home, though I don't know of any who are. If they are, it would not be for no reason. The male has a say in what his wife does, since they are partners in raising a family. Very often the wife has a say in what the man does. Both spouses have some say in what the other does where it concerns the welfare of the family. They are married. What one does affects the other as well as their children. You, typically of all hysterical feminists, characterize it as male domination when the male squeaks in protest at anything his wife decides to do.
Women are still paid less than men for doing the same thing. No, women shouldn't be forced into ANY role, whether housewife or career women, neither should men.
I forget how many times I've said this now, but I do not wish women to be forced to do anything.
I don't know of any woman who is paid less than a male for the same work in the same company. Perhaps that is because there are laws against it? Perhaps you mean that fewer women than men work, and therefore collectively earn less than males. This implies that you don't merely think that women should be allowed to work, you believe they should work, this same belief which has led to women being forced to work, through social conditioning accompanied by various kinds of government intervention designed to achieve that result. I explained this in an above post.
The reason there are fewer women in the workforce is that it is difficult for the family to raise children with both spouses working and another is that many women don't wish to work, and even more women don't wish to work their whole lives. But our feminist elite are still trying regardless.
Btw, I know several women who served in the military who could kick a man's ass. They should be allowed in combat. I also know men who never should join the military.
I didn't say women cannot fight. I didn't say men are all better fighters than women. I didn't say all men are fit for the military. A woman can be trained to fight, as with athletics and sport. I didn't say anything about women's ability to fight. From the POV of ability alone, many women could serve as well or better than many men in military combat roles.
However: (1) on average men are better in combat than women, simply because men are on average physically more powerful than women. Therefore a military with males in combat roles is bound to be superior to a military or the same numerical size with men and women in combat roles. That's not me being sexist, that's a fact which even some of the saner feminists recognize (but still attempt to overcome). Perhaps you think I am sexist for using that as grounds for discriminating against women in combat roles, but I believe the primary purpose of the military is to defend a country, not to provide careers.
My original point was nothing to do with any of that. I was talking about morale as it relates to the injury and capture of women in combat. A woman trained to fight is still a woman in all respects, and we would not wish men to lose that regard for women just to get them into combat.
Ironically, it is feminists who have more than anybody else sensitised society toward any violence toward or harassment of women, to such ridiculous extremes that many people grossly over-react and respond with great prejudice. So my recognition of the innate male intolerance of women experiencing pain and suffering is reasonable by comparison.
As for maternity leave, employers should offer it to both mother and father. Studies have shown that men who take leave after a birth have a closer bond with the baby. I never said anything about it paid by taxpayers, I'm talking EMPLOYERS. Many btw do give men leave now too.
That sounds great for the baby, but it doesn't justify forcing somebody besides the parents to fund it out of his own pocket. I wasn't talking about taxpayers either. I know employers pay for it - that was my complaint. It's unfair. My point beyond that was that other people do pay for it. The employer's wife (a woman) and children (possibly female) pay for it. The customers of the employer pay for it, because he has to cover the cost by factoring it into prices. The other employees pay for it, because with some money diverted to maternity leave there is less money to go around for wages/salaries. Where do you think the money comes from? That cost spreads out ultimately to everybody in society (more than half of whom are women), from every industry and company which provides maternity leave. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I'd never have a baby unless the guy was not a chauvinist pig. Only men wh believe in equality. Both the man I want to be with and me agreed that if we have kids both will take leave and both will work while the grandparents watch during the day.
Is that what I am? Well, the way things are going, you may not be having a baby with the guy you do want. He's taking his time getting back to you on even becoming your boyfriend. So perhaps there is something wrong with "post-feminist man".
Grandparents are good child-minders, but they are not parents. Yours would have to be caring for your children for over eight hours during every week day. Grandparents can't take on the responsibilities of full-time parents. Are your grandparents going to live with you, or will they travel to and from your home every day, or will you take your kids to and from their home before and after work each day?
I just comfort in knowing with your attitude you probably will never have children. I can see through men like you and walk on by. I'd rather be alone than with a sexist pig like you.
Not that you know what my attitude is, since you never actually read my posts before responding to them. There is certainly no need for personal attacks. Men like me are probably glad when you keep walking. We don't want a wife who doesn't listen - there are enough battle-axes already. Many women do like me, and they know and respect my views, even if they don't all share them.
My attitude won't prevent me from having children, it will just ensure I choose to marry a woman who is serious about raising them. You, on the other hand, have no children and you are alone. I am not alone. Perhaps that is something for you to think about. Feminism is certainly one thing which prevents men from wishing to marry. Many non-feminist men are afraid to marry and many feminist men see no point in marrying.
flickad
01-09-2011, 01:35 AM
Thanks genius.
http://www.gylf.se/blog/media/Rosie-the-Riveter_000.jpg
That was a temporary measure, like rationing, war production (where most of those women's jobs came from), conscription, enemy profiling etc. When the war was over and the men came back, the women went back to being housewives. Women didn't do those jobs because they wanted to, they did them because they had to - because there were no men to do them. Women didn't leave their homes and fill the factories for new economic opportunities and career fulfilment. Though maybe some enjoyed making munitions on assembly lines all day.
WW2 was 1939-1945. Second-wave feminism got going in 1963, with the publication of the first popular feminist book - "The Feminine Mystique", by Betty Friedan. So from for at least a decade after WW2, the number of women in the workforce was not increasing. A new generation of women had arrived by that time and the women who had worked during WW2 were already middle-aged or elderly.
Feminism was the driving force behind so many married women entering the workforce. If it was WW2, then why did feminist activism arise at all, eight years later? Why are they still complaining about their not being enough working wives today, 50 years later? Even if WW2 had been a catalyst (and I agree it made some contribution), feminism was still the driving movement. Are you seriously saying feminists were not responsible for wives entering the work force? Do you not know that is their main agenda? Do you think it happened by itself?
Next you'll be telling me WW2 was the catalyst for Japanese-Americans choosing to relocate to prison camps in the desert. This is more evidence of how far backward people are willing to bend to defend the conventional view of feminism.
WW2 wasn't the first time women worked outside of homes. For all of modern Western history there have been women working as domestic cooks, maids, servants, governesses, seamstresses, farm laborers, in factories, in nursing and hospitality and then there are the numerous women who worked alongside their husband and children in family businesses. Women have always worked. Feminism gave women nothing they did not already have.
The difference is that before feminism, women who had to get jobs outside of the home, because their husbands' incomes were not great enough or they had not yet married, had less social status. Being able to tend their own home and family was a source of social prestige for them, not oppression and misery. Were wives just stupid all those centuries, or did they actually enjoy it?
That's 1000 times in two years, BTW. An average of two posts per day doesn't mean I live here.
If women enjoyed being stuck at home so much, why did they take to the budding feminist movement in droves? And why did legislation that forced women into the home need to exist (eg coverture, unequal pay, being debarred from universities) if that was where women wanted to be anyway?
Hopper
01-09-2011, 01:36 AM
Yeah he's probably one of those guys (I know a few) who blame feminists for him not getting laid. Feminists get blamed for everything. He reminds me of this chauvinist pig I met years ago who told me that women love housework and all women want to be housewives but the government forces them to work. When I said I love to work he said I was brainwashed.
Btw, Penandink you rock.
I blame feminists for lots of things. Your disgusting personal attacks are completely unwarranted by anything I have said and it shows what kind of person you are. I have met and known many women who respected my views even when they didn't share them. Disagreement is simply not a reason for hate. The fact that feminists do think disagreeing with them is grounds for hate shows how emotionally programmed they are. I don't think every woman who wants to work is brainwashed but all of your posts show that you have been brainwashed.
Hopper
01-09-2011, 01:40 AM
Hopper,
I've no intention of debating you. I'll admit you've got a special kind of raw courage to be a sexist jerk on a site designed for, and populated by, women. (Your clear lack of experience with women is obvious, but that's a sidebar conversation.)
Cheers, baby.
Obviously you can't debate. Your first post was a stupid one and the above post was out of spite because I demonstrated the stupidity of the first. Sexism has nothing to do with it, and although I am going against majority opinion, it is not out of courage. There is nothing courageous about posting anything anonymously on an internet message-board. I post my opinions because I have confidence in them and I believe they need to be said.
Cheers, nerd.
Kellydancer
01-09-2011, 01:44 AM
Me brainwashed? Not hardly. I just hate chauvinist pigs. As for staying at home, HELL NO. I hate being at home and to be honest can't imagine even loving a man enough to give up a career I worked hard at for him. Then again I'd never even consider a chauvinist man. I've had opportunities to stay at home and yes I rejected them. I would reject any man who even considered it.
My personal attacks? Hey if you are a chauvinist pig then I guess that's a personal attack. Oh and I did read your long winded garbage comments (based on YOUR fact, without real stats) but I was so disgusted that a sexist would even be on a site mostly with women.
Also, perhaps you need to read many of my other posts to see I don't agree with everything the feminists agree on. So then how could I be brainwashed?
Kellydancer
01-09-2011, 01:48 AM
My attitude won't prevent me from having children, it will just ensure I choose to marry a woman who is serious about raising them. You, on the other hand, have no children and you are alone. I am not alone. Perhaps that is something for you to think about. Feminism is certainly one thing which prevents men from wishing to marry. Many non-feminist men are afraid to marry and many feminist men see no point in marrying.
You accuse me of personal attacks but this is the most mean spirited thing you have said and far worse than anything I said to you.
Yeah I'm sure you have someone. Not with your attitude. Btw, I have several men who are interested in me but I'm only interested in them for their money. So much for me being alone.
Hopper
01-09-2011, 02:08 AM
You accuse me of personal attacks but this is the most mean spirited thing you have said and far worse than anything I said to you.
Yeah I'm sure you have someone. Not with your attitude. Btw, I have several men who are interested in me but I'm only interested in them for their money. So much for me being alone.
I haven't said anything mean to you. "Male chauvinists" don't fight girls. What you quoted was not mean-spirited. I commented on your personal life to make a point which you first raised and only because you brought my personal life (which you know nothing about) into the debate. If you want to comment about me to prove your point expect me to comment about you if it also fits. I really do think you should think about what I said. You said my views keep women away, I said your views could be the reason you are by yourself. I didn't say anything against you personally.
You have called me a woman-hater, a chauvinist pig, a sexist, you said I can't get laid or get girlfriends, called my comments "garbage". All of that is worse than anything I have said to you. Not that I really care. But it is damaging to insult others even in internet forums.
Hopper
01-09-2011, 02:11 AM
Also, perhaps you need to read many of my other posts to see I don't agree with everything the feminists agree on. So then how could I be brainwashed?
Name one. If you are a feminist yourself, then how can you disagree with feminists on anything they all agree on? If you are not a feminist, why defend feminism?
Hopper
01-09-2011, 04:54 AM
If women enjoyed being stuck at home so much, why did they take to the budding feminist movement in droves?
Women weren't "stuck" at home if they were there by choice and liked it. The women who joined the feminist movement were either already part of the socialist/left-wing movement from which it originated or were attracted by propaganda, as with many other movements today. There are "droves" of Republican and Religious Right women too. The mass media coopreated in propagating feminist ideas. Corporate foundations routinely fund and even publish feminist publications and other projects. Feminism was given it's own field at universities ("women's studies") and was incorporated into courses in other fields. Governments created special offices for "women" and created projects for promoting feminism and directly implementing it's agenda. Feminism has never even publicly represented itself as what it really is (hence my difficulty in this thread), so many women were not even aware of what they were really supporting. They thought it was something to do with "women's rights".. The radical core of feminism has always been a very small minority. Droves of women haven't become a part of that.
You probably believe that there is such a thing as social programming. That is all the above has been. It has been effected from the top, not from below. None of the leading feminists have been "oppressed housewives". the feminist movement has received help from the "patriarchal" elite from the very beginning. I have a radical feminist book which at the beginnining of the "Acknowledgments", i.e on the very first page of the book, thanks the Rockefeller Foundation for the grant which made the book possible. Fairfax published Ms. magazine, for Anne Somers, a leading feminist protester in the 60s, who was also given her own Office for the Status of Women by the Australian government. They are just two big examples of how the elite have promoted and protected feminism.
And why did legislation that forced women into the home need to exist (eg coverture, unequal pay, being debarred from universities) if that was where women wanted to be anyway?
The reason for coverture laws was not to force women into their homes. It was legislation of the family as a single unit and the husband as the head of it. Husbands could still allow or tell his wife to get paid work if he wished her to, so the laws didn't work to keep wives at home. I don't know of any laws requiring women to be paid less than men, though there have always been laws about wages for various reasons supposedly to protect one group of workers against another. Women were debarred from universities because women were not wanted at universities, not to keep women in the home. Debarring women from universities didn't stop them from doing all other kinds of work outside the home. Women persisted in being housewives for a long time after these laws ceased, so it was not laws keeping women at home. Coverture ended toward the end of the 19th century and housewives persisted up to at least the 1970s. And many wives and single women were working while those laws were in effect.
Do you seriously think women never had jobs before the 60s or WW2? Don't you watch movies or read novels?
flickad
01-09-2011, 05:36 AM
^^
Women may have had jobs, but they were debarred from the professions and certainly debarred from any sort of independence via coverture (including the ownership of any property, which kept women tied to the wills of their husbands). Coverture was ended in the late Victorian era, but discriminatory laws and practices, as well as discriminatory expectations remained, the upshot of which were to push most women into a home-bound type of role, particularly after marriage. And you have shown no evidence that proves women were housewives by choice rather than as a result of the very same sorts of social pressures you see feminism as imposing, nor have you shown actual evidence that indicates the feminist movement was entirely comprised of radicals and socialists. Even if the first feminists were radicals and socialists, if women were so happy in a traditional role, how on Earth did the feminist movement get co-opted by mainstream women?
In the post-feminist era, women remain free to fulfil a traditional role if they so choose, but few choose to. If you claim that this is because they are brainwashed by feminism, then you must similarly accept that those who were stay-at-home wives before the 1960s were also brainwashed by the social expectations of that era.
Who are you to determine what is best for women as a whole, in any event? As a libertarian, surely you agree that what is best for the individual is for that individual to decide, so long as one does not act criminally.
As for the maternity leave question, this is one of the few points upon which we agree. I do not see it as the employer's role to subsidise the life choices of employees, particularly those that are not work related. If you want to take time off work to raise children, you should be responsible for financing your own leave.
penandink1019
01-09-2011, 10:37 AM
Btw, Penandink you rock.
Yes, yes I do. :D
Thanks, neighbor.
Kellydancer
01-09-2011, 12:10 PM
I haven't said anything mean to you. "Male chauvinists" don't fight girls. What you quoted was not mean-spirited. I commented on your personal life to make a point which you first raised and only because you brought my personal life (which you know nothing about) into the debate. If you want to comment about me to prove your point expect me to comment about you if it also fits. I really do think you should think about what I said. You said my views keep women away, I said your views could be the reason you are by yourself. I didn't say anything against you personally.
You have called me a woman-hater, a chauvinist pig, a sexist, you said I can't get laid or get girlfriends, called my comments "garbage". All of that is worse than anything I have said to you. Not that I really care. But it is damaging to insult others even in internet forums.
Your comments are chauvinist. Yes you did say something mean, this:
My attitude won't prevent me from having children, it will just ensure I choose to marry a woman who is serious about raising them. You, on the other hand, have no children and you are alone. I am not alone. Perhaps that is something for you to think about. Feminism is certainly one thing which prevents men from wishing to marry. Many non-feminist men are afraid to marry and many feminist men see no point in marrying.
Kellydancer
01-09-2011, 12:20 PM
^^As for the maternity leave question, this is one of the few points upon which we agree. I do not see it as the employer's role to subsidise the life choices of employees, particularly those that are not work related. If you want to take time off work to raise children, you should be responsible for financing your own leave.
How would you feel if an employer gave paid time? My former employer had maternity leave (paid) but it was more of a paid leave for any disability. My one coworker had a heart attack and got 3 months paid off. I have no problem with employers giving paid time as long as it's fair to everyone. Meaning if they give maternity leave to women they should offer it to men.
However, I feel there is a limit to this and no, I don't want it tax payer subsidized. I got into it on another message board because I said I don't want paid maternity leave taxpayer paid.
flickad
01-09-2011, 03:39 PM
How would you feel if an employer gave paid time? My former employer had maternity leave (paid) but it was more of a paid leave for any disability. My one coworker had a heart attack and got 3 months paid off. I have no problem with employers giving paid time as long as it's fair to everyone. Meaning if they give maternity leave to women they should offer it to men.
However, I feel there is a limit to this and no, I don't want it tax payer subsidized. I got into it on another message board because I said I don't want paid maternity leave taxpayer paid.
If they choose to, fine, but I don't see that it should be legislated as mandatory.
Kellydancer
01-09-2011, 03:46 PM
If they choose to, fine, but I don't see that it should be legislated as mandatory.
I don't either, but most of the employers I've worked for had paid leave. My main problem with this is it does discriminate against childless. My last employer had paid leave regardless of the reason for the leave and this was fine.
No, I do not support taxpayer funded leave like several are trying to push through. A few are even trying to push through mandated year of paid leave courtesy of taxpayers. To me this is welfare. I always say if one wants children I shouldn't have to pay.
eagle2
01-09-2011, 11:58 PM
All I have said is that I oppose feminism and that husband and wife logically (though not in all cases) have different roles in supporting their family. That's all. There is nothing oppressive about that. For centuries, it made a lot of husbands and wives very happy.
How do you know?
eagle2
01-10-2011, 12:14 AM
However: (1) on average men are better in combat than women, simply because men are on average physically more powerful than women.
You don't need to be physically powerful to pull a trigger. Intelligence is a much greater factor in the quality of a soldier, than physical strength.
Therefore a military with males in combat roles is bound to be superior to a military or the same numerical size with men and women in combat roles. That's not me being sexist, that's a fact which even some of the saner feminists recognize (but still attempt to overcome). Perhaps you think I am sexist for using that as grounds for discriminating against women in combat roles, but I believe the primary purpose of the military is to defend a country, not to provide careers.
Then how come armies with women in combat roles were able to defeat armies that did not allow women in combat roles? How did the Soviet Union defeat Germany, with large numbers of women on the front lines?
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military#World_War _II
"Women played a large part in most of the armed forces of the Second World War. In most countries though, women tended to serve mostly in administrative, medical and in auxiliary roles. But in the Soviet Union women fought in larger numbers in front line roles. Over 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces in World War II; nearly 200,000 of them were decorated and 89 of them eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles."
One female sniper killed over 300 enemy soldiers. I would bet she was much more fit to be a combat soldier than you are.
eagle2
01-10-2011, 12:17 AM
I don't agree with those laws either. I'm a libertarian. Individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves. Feminism doesn't allow that.
You're not a libertarian. You said women should not be allowed to serve in combat, therefore you don't think individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves. You want to decide for women and the military whether or not women should be allowed to serve in certain roles.
Kellydancer
01-10-2011, 12:36 AM
How do you know?
Because Hopper said it and he knows all about women. Actually I get a kick out of him saying all these housewives were happy because I've spoken to a lot of them and very few were happy. In fact a relative of mine was pushed into the role and hated it. She wanted a career but was told good girls married and she did. Later on though she divorced. Her husband hit her and cheated (including getting his secretary pregnant) but according to Hopper she was happy being a housewife.
Hopper
01-16-2011, 02:55 AM
^^
Women may have had jobs, but they were debarred from the professions and certainly debarred from any sort of independence via coverture (including the ownership of any property, which kept women tied to the wills of their husbands).
It's true that barring women from university would have generally given women less incentive to work outside their homes, since it would close off to them many professional careers. Many of the more fulfilling types of work (as opposed to work only for income) required university education. But barring them from university still left other kinds of work open to them. Most husbands didn't go to university either. Most men were (and are) laborers with only basic education. If women merely wanted what feminists call "economic independence" they could still have done that type of work. They could have started their own businesses without a university education. There were even some professions and arts they could have pursued without attending university.
Your point about coverture is a different one. Now you are talking about husbands, not laws, keeping women at home, if they want them at home. But why would husbands wish their wives to stay at home? In a patriarchal slave-state, why wouldn't the men rather stay at home and send their wives to work for the household income? What purpose would it serve under any circumstances for husbands to keep their wives at home? Why would they wish to force their wives to do something they hate? Since when do wives do everything their husbands want them to anyway? Some of them tell their husbands what to do.
Wives weren't tied to the wills of their husbands, they were the rightful heirs of their husbands property. In a family unit, property is effectively jointly owned. Families are tied together as a unit. So when one member dies, the living members get their property. It already is their property before that member dies.
Coverture was ended in the late Victorian era, but discriminatory laws and practices, as well as discriminatory expectations remained, the upshot of which were to push most women into a home-bound type of role, particularly after marriage.
More discriminatory laws? Go ahead and name them too.
In any era, under any prevailing system of values, people love to make laws to guarantee observance of those values. It wasn't patriarchal oppression, it was just that the laws of the day reflected the traditions of that time. What you call "discriminatory expectations" was simply everybody (including women) following their beliefs about how society should be arranged. And it didn't start in Victorian England - it was the same for all recorded history all over the world.
As a libertarian, I believe it is not desirable or necessary for legislation to be made about individual actions or even for expectations to be placed on individuals by society (i.e. other individuals). People should mind their own business. I am confident that the "traditional" family roles would achieve popularity without any pressure on individuals, as long as feminist pressure is also removed. That is what libertarianism is all about: Free of restrictions, individuals will choose what is best for themselves.
And you have shown no evidence that proves women were housewives by choice rather than as a result of the very same sorts of social pressures you see feminism as imposing,
I have shown that the division of labor in the family is economically advantageous for the family and innate to the sexes. It doesn't require coercion or pressure and if it did it would mean it is not desirable or beneficial for individuals or society. It is a natural order arising from the reproductive arrangement inherent to human kind. Therefore it preceded the laws, traditions and social expectations, which grew up around it. It didn't begin in Victorian England, it has existed everywhere in the world for all of recorded history. It would be a big coincidence if elites ("ruling classes") in all eras, in every nation and tribe, had decided to impose the same social order for families to further their own interests, whatever they are supposed to be.
The conditioning by feminism, however, can be traced to particular individuals and movements within recent history. From the first screech, we have been inundated with it from every institution.
The "patriarchal social conditioning" which feminists claim kept wives at home was entirely a feminist concoction. They have devised numerous theories about how social and historical circumstances led to the "patriarchal" family and ignored the plain and obvious reason for it's existence: the human reproductive order, from which the division of labor between husband and wife naturally arises as the most convenient arrangement for raising and supporting a family. The fact that they have to resort to artificial means in order to circumvent this (maternity leave, paid or state-provided child-care, equal opportunity laws, positive discrimination etc.) are an indication of this. There is no reason to believe it was anything but the way people chose to live because it is the most advantageous. The laws and expectations, though perhaps not justified, were merely reflections, outgrowths, of how people chose to live.
The only thing feminists could justly claim is that individuals should not be forced by law to follow this natural order, because for some people there may be factors other than the natural order to consider. And because nobody but the individuals concerned can properly judge what they are, nor does anybody else have the right to judge what is good for others.
nor have you shown actual evidence that indicates the feminist movement was entirely comprised of radicals and socialists. Even if the first feminists were radicals and socialists, if women were so happy in a traditional role, how on Earth did the feminist movement get co-opted by mainstream women?
No movement is composed entirely of radicals, but I have shown that the core was radical. Radicals seek to gain influence over the rest of society through fronts and propaganda designed to appeal to non-radicals. Radicals know they need the cooperation or acquiescence of the wider public, so of course they have to find ways to gain the support of non-radicals without appearing to be radical. They know they can't make everybody a radical (at least not a conscious radical), but they can influence non-radicals with the right propaganda to support or acquiesce, consciously or unwittingly, their radical agenda.
The feminist movement did not get co-opted by mainstream women, it merely gained more support from mainstream women. It pretended to be mainstream with clever window-dressing. None of the feminist leadership have ever been mainstream women. They have all been radicals and socialists (same thing actually). All the way back to Frederich Engels and before him Robert Owen and Claude Henri de Rouvroy (Comte de Saint-Simon) - way before the term "feminism" was even coined, well before "second-wave" feminism began, way before it even became a women's movement..
I have given evidence, in this and one or two other threads, that the leadership of second-wave feminism has been socialist from the beginning and arose wholly from the socialist movement as one front in that movement, which it remains today, for the purpose of realizing several points in the socialist plan. Feminism is nothing to do with women..
In the post-feminist era, women remain free to fulfil a traditional role if they so choose, but few choose to.
Right, free, but nobody is allowed to talk about it. Nobody is allowed to talk in favor of being a housewife but feminists can talk all they want about why it's inferior. But women are free to be housewives - except that they have to subsidize working women. Hmm, why do few women choose to be housewives..
If you claim that this is because they are brainwashed by feminism, then you must similarly accept that those who were stay-at-home wives before the 1960s were also brainwashed by the social expectations of that era.
I have shown that feminism has had a monolithic influence from the elite levels of society. I just dealt with the issue of why women were housewives before feminist influence took over. "Social expectations" don't brainwash people, political subversives and elites with agendas brainwash people. Brainwashing has to create those expectations to begin with. You've got the cart before the horse. For what ulterior purpose would anybody brainwash women to look after their children and homes?
I don't know of any housewife movements which gained control of the elite and subverted all our institutions to further their agenda to make women stay at home and care for their children and tend their homes. How would the elite benefit from such a movement? It must have started a long time ago, because it has been the arrangement everywhere in the world for all of history. Must have been fairly secret too if even feminists can't tell us who first perpetrated this conspiracy or kept it going afterward. Do you have any documentation of this subversive housewife movement? Leaders, organizations, dates, literature, manifestos?
As I said, we need look no further for a reason for that arrangement than economic expediency and innate tendencies of the sexes. The feminist arrangement does not make sense except in some political agenda in the interests of someone other than individual families. Many women may want careers, but it is not in the interests of women or their families for them to throw the kids in daycare, get a job in an office or a factory (where most men work) and demand maternity leave. Nothing about any of that is more exciting or fulfilling than caring for one's own home and children.
Who are you to determine what is best for women as a whole, in any event? As a libertarian, surely you agree that what is best for the individual is for that individual to decide, so long as one does not act criminally.
What is wrong with talking about what I think is the best way of organizing the family? Why isn't it "determining" when you talk about how you think women should do, or not do?. I am not ordering women to practice mine. I have said all along in this thread, since I was first attacked, that women should be free to choose for themselves, rightly or wrongly. All I want to do is ensure that they make a properly informed choice, free of artificial, political and ideological influence by elite politicos whose interests are at odds with those of individual women. The very fact that I am in trouble her for just mentioning the benefits of the role of housewife indicates that you and a few others here think women should not be housewives. I haven't said a word about forcing women to be housewives, so that can't be what you object to.
Kellydancer can start a career in upper management if she likes. But she should not talk illogically about what is best for other women or criticize me unfairly for what I believe is best for women. I am allowed to have an opinion on what is best for women. That's not the same as telling women what to do.
As for the maternity leave question, this is one of the few points upon which we agree. I do not see it as the employer's role to subsidize the life choices of employees, particularly those that are not work related. If you want to take time off work to raise children, you should be responsible for financing your own leave.
There is good in you. You can be turned.
Hopper
01-16-2011, 02:58 AM
How do you know?
Because it's what most people chose to do and nobody told them to do it.
Hopper
01-16-2011, 02:59 AM
You don't need to be physically powerful to pull a trigger. Intelligence is a much greater factor in the quality of a soldier, than physical strength.
I'm not trained in military combat myself but I'm pretty sure that it involves more than just pulling a trigger. Whatever the importance of intelligence, physical ability, power and endurance are important also. Watch a war movie once in your life. Watch "Blackhawk Down" and tell me how relevant it is that "intelligence is more important than physical strength".
Then how come armies with women in combat roles were able to defeat armies that did not allow women in combat roles? How did the Soviet Union defeat Germany, with large numbers of women on the front lines?
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military#World_War _II
"Women played a large part in most of the armed forces of the Second World War. In most countries though, women tended to serve mostly in administrative, medical and in auxiliary roles. But in the Soviet Union women fought in larger numbers in front line roles. Over 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces in World War II; nearly 200,000 of them were decorated and 89 of them eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles."
In their battle with Germany in WW2 the Soviets had to press as many able-bodied people as possible into service and they were largely used as fodder on the front lines. None of the women were on the front lines. The women in the above quote were were pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew, partisans - not regular face-to-face combat roles, although I do include them as combat roles. Those roles did not require the same physical power or endurance and did not involve the same immediate risk which regular, face-to-face, feet-on-the-ground combat requires. Even sitting behind a machine gun and hosing it around is safer than going directly up against the enemy with a rifle.
Also, since you are comparing the success of the two forces, the match between Germany and Russia was unequal for a number of reasons, most notably that the Allies substantially aided and supported the Soviet Union at this time and were opposed to and of course embargoing Germany and her allies. Even so, the Soviets had to provide the personnel, and required massive numbers to fight Germany.
One female sniper killed over 300 enemy soldiers. I would bet she was much more fit to be a combat soldier than you are.
It's not that hard for a sniper to pick off 300 of the enemy from a safe hiding place, a long way off, in his entire period of service. Usually nobody's shooting back. Usually, the sniper gets the other guy first.
Hopper
01-16-2011, 03:01 AM
You're not a libertarian. You said women should not be allowed to serve in combat, therefore you don't think individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves. You want to decide for women and the military whether or not women should be allowed to serve in certain roles.
A country's military is not private domain, it is a state service. Libertarianism is already out the window as soon as you start talking about what happens with state-run services, where the state, not individuals, decides who joins and under what conditions. But women would probably still be kept out of a private military. It would be up to whoever formed and commanded it. If women wanted to fight, they could always form their own units.
Once women are allowed into combat roles in the military, they can also be conscripted into combat roles, so that women who don't choose to be in combat will be put into combat - in as great a number as the state desires.
Feminists denounce violence toward women louder than anybody else. They have worked themselves up to a frenzy over the lightest assault, even verbal threats of it. Yet simultaneously they loudly demand women have the right to be put into the most violent situation of all: war. Feminist have also long allied themselves with the peace movement, characterizing war of course as a male tendency and a tool of the "patriarchal ruling elite". Only men are violent, usually toward women. Simultaneously, they are demanding the right of women to pursue a career in patriarchal violence and participate in wars. They boycott wars on the one hand, and demand the right to fight in them on the other.
Hopper
01-16-2011, 03:02 AM
Because Hopper said it and he knows all about women. Actually I get a kick out of him saying all these housewives were happy because I've spoken to a lot of them and very few were happy. In fact a relative of mine was pushed into the role and hated it. She wanted a career but was told good girls married and she did. Later on though she divorced. Her husband hit her and cheated (including getting his secretary pregnant) but according to Hopper she was happy being a housewife.
A lot of feminists and career women are unhappy too. Of course many marriages are going to be unhappy for many reasons. I did not say that all marriages are happy. But the examples you gave above were not directly the fault of women being housewives. By your logic, sexual harassment in the work place is the fault of women working outside the home. You are showing your bias again. Just because you want a career in upper management doesn't mean all other women do, so you shouldn't be commenting on what makes other women happy.
Hopper
01-16-2011, 03:08 AM
Your comments are chauvinist.
They are not at all chauvinist. Calling someone a "pig" just because he doesn't agree with your views is an insult. "Chauvinist pig" is just a feminist label for anybody who disagrees, whether he is a real "pig" or not. Even if you were right about this one thing, it would not justify your other insults.
It is really feminist men who are chauvinist pigs. At the radical core, feminists have ideally wanted not only to give wives independence within marriage and the family, but to abolish marriage and the family. They call marriage "institutionalized rape" or "institutionalized prostitution". If both parents are working and the child is in daycare over 40 hrs/wk, what's the point in staying together to bring up the child at all? Why even stick around?
The socialists ideal has from the beginning been for men and women to breed independently of families or spouses (and under the control of the state) and for the offspring to be reared and educated by the state. The family is the natural enemy of the state, because it is a rival allegiance and influence. The family produces strong, self-reliant individuals with an independent identity. The state wants a herd of isolated individuals with no background or ties between one another and solely reliant and identified with the state. Such people are easier for the state to control.
Now, if there is no marriage, the father of the offspring has no responsibility to the mother. He finds a woman, screws her and leaves in the morning or five minutes after, leaving the woman literally holding the baby, to be weaned and handed to a state nursery. That just happens to be the male ideal: "no strings" sex. It's what all "chauvinist pigs" want. Feminism has been very good to philanderers in our society. No wonder Hugh Heffner is a feminist. It tells us that the modern gal is as horny and promiscuous as the boys. If she is lucky, she might get a LTR out of it, maybe even for a few months, but that's all up to whether the male wants to stick around.
Yes you did say something mean, this:
That was in response to this:
I just comfort in knowing with your attitude you probably will never have children. I can see through men like you and walk on by. I'd rather be alone than with a sexist pig like you.
I did not say it to be mean, I said it to show the hypocrisy of your argument and to put you in your place. I was only stating a fact to show that feminist men are no better for you.
Kellydancer
01-16-2011, 12:43 PM
Kellydancer can start a career in upper management if she likes. But she should not talk illogically about what is best for other women or criticize me unfairly for what I believe is best for women. I am allowed to have an opinion on what is best for women. That's not the same as telling women what to do.
Oh I'm not allowed to have an opinion what's best for women, but you are? Sorry, but that is wrong because I AM A WOMAN AND YOU ARE A MAN. Since I am a woman that does make me more of an expert of being a woman. Of course men like you think you know more about what women should do, which is why you are definitely a chauvinist pig. And no, that's not an attack, that's a fact. I have stated many times that I DON'T CARE if a woman stays at home, just that she should know the risks if she does this. Yes, there are risks doing anything, but this can cause a lot of financial risks in her life and that is reality.
I am not even sure why you brought up unwed parenthood since I have stated I am against that.
Btw, I am done responding to you. It's obvious you are either a troll or someone who hates women, probably both. Why you are on a site full of women, especially working women (strippers and other adult entertainers) is beyond me. Shouldn't you be on a forum devoted to women who stay at home and the men who feel it's best?
KS_Stevia
01-16-2011, 03:30 PM
Interesting debate. But Hopper, what about women like me who are incapable of having children to take care of? What's wrong with us then having a career to keep us occupied during the day? It doesn't take an entire day to clean a house with only 2 people living in it. Plus, the excess income allows me to hire a deep cleaning person anyway.
What do you think about women who cannot have children? How do we figure into this equation?