It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheRedneck
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. What power are you talking about? Sex?
Some people on this thread think she is saying to withhold sex until you get what you want politically. They are not okay with that concept, and neither am I. But I don’t think that’s what she’s saying.
originally posted by: WeAreSound
You do realise she most certainly can, and probably does achieve one without you (or any other man) on a regular basis!
This Thread is cracking me up.......
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck
well, just think about your own circle of friends, if you know women who have kids and women who don't around the same age, do the women with no kids look much younger? it helps if your friends aren't prone to slap on a ton of makeup to make this comparison I admit.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: kaylaluv
I sometimes wonder if part of that historical subjugation was at least partly a result of women being simply satisfied in their roles. While I am not quite ancient enough to remember a time before women's suffrage, I am old enough to have witnessed a change in attitudes. There was a time in my life when women as a rule were quite happy being housewives and homemakers. As societal pressure began to force more women into the labor force, more than a few seemed genuinely unhappy with their new role.
I think there's more truth in that than a lot of people would like to admit. In my life I've talked to a lot of women who went through WWII, and I, as a girl-child of the 80s, was absolutely shocked (and at the time, a little horrified) to hear that more of these women than not were thrilled when it was all over and they could leave the factories etc. and go back to being housewives. Granted, I don't have any kind of scientific sample, but the majority of women I've spoken to were perfectly happy with their lives and were relieved when they didn't have to try to take on a man's role anymore.
Now before I go on to my next thought, I want to make one thing perfectly clear so that no one (not that you would, DB, but other people probably will) misinterprets my intent. I do not in any way, shape, or form go back to the good ol' days when women couldn't vote, married women couldn't hold property (like in the UK till well into the 20th century), become doctors or lawyers etc.
That said, historic writing--not the famous words of the movers-and-shakers, the manifestos of the activists etc. but the thoughts of everyday people--show that even the women's suffrage movement wasn't as cut-and-dried as we feel like it is today. Yes, there were women who were ready to fight and even die for it. (And thank God for them!) But there were also plenty of woman who thought it was a really, really bad idea and were concerned that it would take away from their lives rather than enhancing them; that it would damage their roles as women in society. And, as with so many hot-button social issues, a vast number of women fell somewhere in between. On the whole, women seem to have been pretty happy with their roles.
Edit to add: What a great discussion!edit on 3-11-2018 by riiver because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: misskat1
The headline is deceiving, but what would we expect from CNN. Even their headline lies. There is no mention in the article about withholding sex until the midterms.
It's time for a revolution. At the polls, and in the bedroom
originally posted by: BoscoMoney
"You do realise she most certainly can, and probably does achieve one without you on a regular basis!"
Oh wow what a surprise, so can I.
Get over yourselves. Equal. Not superior.