It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 15
58
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Speaking of the barter system, now that's a good point!

One of the funniest video clips I ever saw in my life was of two orangutangs. The male had a banana. The female wanted it, and he held it out of her reach. She laid down and spread her legs, he jumped on her for the requisite 6 seconds, then as he got up she held out her hand, he handed her the banana and walked away. For some reason this made me laugh and cry at the same time. It was like the whole of animal/human nature summed up in a 15 second clip.

I would be more than happy to barter for money to save the economy. If the state would let me put up a sign advertising oral sex for trade -- I could use some plumbing work, mechanical help, lawn mowing and landscaping, and occasional handyman duties -- without imprisoning me, I might consider it. Well and there's the issue of a small midwest town with 32 churches that might pin a scarlet letter to me and burn me at the stake, of course. (Thelemites are not real common here...) Still, I'm all for improving the economy. You get the laws changed, I'll go with the program.

PJ




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinister_scarecrow
look at the big picture today, Men are the ones getting taken advantage of.


I think we need to break this down into topical-matters to address that kind of thing.

Usually, when it comes to things like children, men are definitely getting the worst of it in our culture. A woman can choose to abort a child of a man's and there is no recourse for him. A woman can choose to adopt out a child of a man's and this one I might be wrong about, but I think if she simply says she doesn't know the father, she could do so, unless he knew about it and literally went to court over it (and quickly). A woman can choose to have a baby of a man's and he'll be paying child support for the rest of his life. And before people say "well that's reasonable" (and I agree to some extent), I might add that the mother can also make the child afraid of or unwilling or unable to have any decent relationship with the father as part of that, which is so profoundly ethically wrong I think it ought to terminate his need to pay her money frankly. And in the end it's always the woman's choice, not the man's.

I had a buddy who at age 18, was one of 17 men that were paternity tested (including his brother) by a 19 year old who wanted child support. Turned out to be him (though given her party habits -- as the testing numbers imply -- it could have been anybody). She admitted she just wanted a child, said she was glad it turned out to be him as he was nicer than some others. Except for him it meant going to work at a minimum wage job instead of going to college because he couldn't pay hundreds a month in child support. Me, I find that profoundly unfair. I think if a woman gets pregnant and she was not raped and is not in an event temporary (as in, longer than 15 minute) relationship with that man, then it ought to be her responsibility--because in the end it's really her problem--I don't think making it men's problem without giving the women any responsibility for the subject is justified at all.

I might add that I never asked for child support from my ex. I asked him to use the money to come visit his kid so she would have a dad. Despite wanting to murder him off and on, I was kind and let him stay with us, was polite while he visited, saved money so they could do special things together. It's about the child, first. And I've suffered for not having that money but to me, I made a bad decision about a mate, which is my responsibility to begin with. I could hound him for support. I could probably ruin his life about it, have him thrown in jail. Who is that really going to help. If he were wealthy it might be different, but like most people, he's just trying to get by.


When is the last time you have seen a commercial on a charity run for colon cancer for men or our 'red ribbon' to help support prostate cancer for men, despite the fact that it rates right up there with breast cancer in deaths? Where is OUR help? Women seem to get all the attention and help from gov't, charities and the like whereas men get to simply die.


On this one, I recommend you begin those charities. I think it is because women began them, that they exist. Perhaps women are simply more proactive about that kind of activist caretaking than men, at least in this area. I think breast cancer makes women feel victimized and they are willing to complain loudly and ask for help. I have observed that prostrate cancer, while it invokes similar feelings in men, is also sometimes an issue of embarrassment. Like it somehow makes them unclean, or less tough, to admit they have that. Maybe this is why they don't pursue it so much.


I just lost my job recently, because of the recession and 16 men followed me from the company I worked with. Do you know how many women got canned? Not one!


Ah, but for all I know this supports the women's position: maybe they made less money. ;-)

PJ



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinister_scarecrow
If you look back at my earliest statements, you will see that I am directing my anger only to those who are likewise 'on the attack' yet from the opposite gender. I am upset at feminists and those who follow them.Not the working woman with struggles the same as mine.


Feminism is a word with a lot of meanings and baggage.

The suffragettes were awesome. They're heroes. Women deserved to get to vote. And women deserved the right to access for birth control. And quite a few other things the overall 'effort' has made possible. I'm sometimes amazed when I read about the recent past and realize how far women have come in our culture in a very short time.

Much of the modern 'feminism' is people who have usurped that word for their own political agendas. They hate men and they consider women victimized by default and by birth and that everybody especially men should have to pay for this. Not all woman feel anything like that. I have less in common with most feminists than I have with the average guy working at the steel mill I suspect.

I have met, however, a few feminists that I admired and respected as people, who didn't seem to fall into that mold. This surprised me. I think this is a fairly complex subject of its own and goes well beyond the sort of humorous OP topic of whether working women have caused the economic crisis. ;-)

PJ



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinister_scarecrow

Have YOU been taken to the cleaners by a woman and lost your job to one or had to deal with court rulings and losing your child to them simply because they now have the power through the courts to do it to you? Didn't think so.


You know what the problem is? It is OT's victim mentality in full force here in this thread.

Do you honestly think that only men are victimized by their spouses? Girlfriends? Etc?

Over three to one, women are killed by their partners more often. AND, women's rights have decreased the number of men killed. Because now, the woman can actually leave a good percentage of the time rather than be trapped in the relationship.

www.helpstartshere.org...


According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, 1,055 women and 287 men were murdered by their intimate partners in 2005. These figures are striking, because in the past, in the 1970s and earlier, the numbers of men and women so victimized were about even. In other words, there has been a significant decline in the numbers of men killed by their partners but not for women.

The number of men who were murdered by intimates dropped by 75% between 1976 and 2005 (BJS). The number of black females murdered in this time has declined but the number of white females murdered has dropped only by 6%. Statistics Canada (1998, 2005), similarly, reveals a sharp decline in the numbers of male domestic homicide victims but not of female victims of homicide.


You cite that men are being robbed in divorce court, but how about all the women who have had to support their children all on their own without any help from the father? I know people like that right now. In one case, because the formerly $60,000+earning guy quit his high paying job and is letting his new girlfriend support him while he works under the table so that his ex and kids get as little as he can get by with. Meanwhile, his ex is working two job, plus raising the kids, and the guy blows off visitation because he is busy with his new girlfriend.

While I am certain and sure, that there are women doing exactly what you say, I am equally certain and sure, there are men behaving just as badly. Testicles do not Sainthood make.

Face it, there are jerky people of every kind. No one group is more ridden with jerks than another. It may look that way sometimes, when the jerks get to make the rules, but it is human nature that in every group, there is a subgroup of the irresponsible, mean, spiteful, and ignorant. There are also good people in every group. And, if a person continually runs up only on the jerk people, you just have to ask yourself if your judgment may be off a bit.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
Many mothers are working because they have to, it's not for $400 cellphones, new cars, or the latest and best gadgets to buy.

I agree. Anybody who thinks women just work for the fun of it must be making a lot more money than most the men I know. I don't choose to live in poverty so unless a man were making a LOT of money I would likely continue working. If he made enough that I didn't have to, fabulous -- but instead I would probably just be working free on things important to me, instead of for pay to manage someone else's widgets.


Like it or not, if something were to happen to dad, mom would find herself in the position where she will have to earn some money! and, that usually means she needs to get a job!


When my mother divorced my father (I was 6 when they split), she found herself with no money, no job skills. She'd spent her life raising kids, not building a resume. When I was 8 and lived with her for a year (my father got me because he had money and she didn't; she 'stole' me at that age and he was going to court to legally force me back), she spent her days going to school in training to become a secretary. She spent her afternoons and weekends working as a hairdresser for income. She spent her late nights practicing typing at the dining table, covering chairs with a blanket over me as I slept on the couch so the noise wouldn't bother me. She worked harder than anybody I knew, with big dreams, all just so that someday, she could afford to have her own kid. Then she died of brain cancer, so, no happy ending there alas. My father got me back by default.

Women being helpless, dependent and vulnerable is not the answer to much of anything. I don't know what the answers are, I only know that is not one of them.


we would have young girls popping baby after baby out now in hopes that they will be able to just raise them on the gov't handouts?


I shouldn't even get started on that topic. I know a local woman. Four children, four fathers. Never a job. The children have been on ritalin etc. since the age of TWO (yes, two) so that their acting like normal children didn't annoy her. The government (read: the people) pay for her to have a lifetime of housing, food, medical care, and to drug her kids into serious problems. They drink Dr. Pepper from their sippy cups. By the time they are adults, they will probably be malnutritioned overdrugged societal screw-ups but apparently that's ok. She has a womb, she's expected to use it. Or something. That kind of stuff there's just no excuse for.

PJ



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedCairo

I have met, however, a few feminists that I admired and respected as people, who didn't seem to fall into that mold. This surprised me. I think this is a fairly complex subject of its own and goes well beyond the sort of humorous OP topic of whether working women have caused the economic crisis. ;-)

PJ


Maybe that is because there was a deliberate propaganda campaign by the right to portray "feminisim" in a certain way.

Much like "conspiracy theorists" are all portrayed as basement living, Cheeto and Mountain Dew consuming, nutters who are raving about every single thing being a conspiracy.

whats so crazy about feminism?

en.wikipedia.org...


Feminism is the belief that women should have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights to men. It involves various movements, theories, and philosophies, all concerned with issues of gender difference, that advocate equality for women and that campaign for women's rights and interests.


A group of humans, wanting to be treated as humans. Radical. Crazy man.

Just because there is and was a campaign to portray feminists as man hating, non shaving, lesbian crazies, does not mean that is now or has been the case for most women interested in equal rights. It doesnt mean that there arent feminists that fall into that category. Of course there are. Just like there are conspiracy theorist who live in mom's basement, drink mountain dew, etc.

But there has been a huge campaign against equality for women, from religion, and from members of the opposite gender who did not want them competing for jobs, (or having financial means so they could leave them) voting, etc. and many women today who ARE feminists in the sense that they support equal rights, are ashamed to even be associated with the word.

Propaganda exists because it works.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Just because there is and was a campaign to portray feminists as man hating, non shaving, lesbian crazies, does not mean that is now or has been the case for most women interested in equal rights. It doesnt mean that there arent feminists that fall into that category. Of course there are. Just like there are conspiracy theorist who live in mom's basement, drink mountain dew, etc.


Yes, but the ones that DO fall into that category seem to be the most aggressive "activist" sorts that actually make it into the media.

I know endless numbers of women around me who just want to live and let live raise the kids, have a good life, and support equal rights for women but not with any vehemence. But if you take a tour of the NOW organization leadership you find all those sorts that give it a bad name.

Many years ago, Helen Gurley Brown started a new magazine that was essentially a feminist magazine. The editorial page baffled me. It was like every single one of these women not only didn't believe in makeup (I don't wear it either) but also apparently considered hairbrushes part of the evil regime to Keep Women Down. It was just comical! I mean, it's like the "official feminism" thing has become a cartoon. I grew up thinking feminists were man-hating butch lunatics -- not because some man said, "Hey PJ, guess what?" but because I was exposed to WOMEN acting like that.

Now, if you want to suggest there is male hence corporate hence board hence media bias in favor of that presentation, then I think that might be a valid point. I don't know but given the insane bias and misrepresentation of endless other things for corporate-media reasons, it wouldn't be too hard to believe.


But there has been a huge campaign against equality for women, from religion, and from members of the opposite gender who did not want them competing for jobs, (or having financial means so they could leave them) voting, etc. and many women today who ARE feminists in the sense that they support equal rights, are ashamed to even be associated with the word.

Propaganda exists because it works.


Hmmn. Well I agree with the latter comment. I will have to take your word for it on the former. Not because I disagree, but because I am not self-educated enough about that to have a fair opinion either way.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   


Cheeto and Mountain Dew consuming, nutters who are raving about every single thing being a conspiracy.


mmm cheetos!

i sometimes don't shave me legs. it isn't a feminist statement, it just hurts to shave my legs. lol i don't like pain.


i rarely wear a bra, mostly because i'm recovering from a masectomy, and i don't have a suitable replacement for the missing breast. i didn't get the plastic surgery for a new fake model because....i don't like pain.


so even when the stereotypes are set, they often don't reflect reality even amongst people of similar social strata



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 




I would be more than happy to barter for money to save the economy. If the state would let me put up a sign advertising oral sex for trade -- I could use some plumbing work, mechanical help, lawn mowing and landscaping, and occasional handyman duties -- without imprisoning me, I might consider it.



Holy Moly! Count me in! Thanks for the hope!(been a long time)

Have tools will travel!


[edit on 4-3-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dodadoom
reply to post by RedCairo
 




I would be more than happy to barter for money to save the economy. If the state would let me put up a sign advertising oral sex for trade -- I could use some plumbing work, mechanical help, lawn mowing and landscaping, and occasional handyman duties -- without imprisoning me, I might consider it.



Holy Moly! Count me in! Thanks for the hope!(been a long time)

Have tools will travel!


[edit on 4-3-2009 by dodadoom]


I 100% love that post...

Not quite what I had in mind when I suggested barter but....



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


you should rethink your offer. you're going to make it impossible for old uglies such as myself, to get any bartered goods and services without trying to sell the old ugly, which i wouldn't do in the first place and which I'M CERTAIN they wouldn't want in the second place! think about the rest of us ladies! EGADS woman!



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 

Hey, I'm not belittleing the hard work shown by women at all!
You are putting way more into what I said than I meant.
You're getting too different issues lumped together.
You want to stick up for the system that wouldn't let you
even vote for years? Go right ahead!!!
Better go back and study the movement in the 1920's.
I guess I should of said MAYBE this happened!
I'm saying I trust women generally.
The gubment? Not really. Thanks for callin me out on it!

My mother worked because dad got hurt. She worked at
home to be here for us. Whatever any person wants to do
is fine by me. My wife takes care of the home while I work,
her choice. I would like her to work a little, but its nice shes
home too. If we we're dumb and had big payments, then ya.
We started in a small crappy house and fixed it up sold it
for more and eventually ended up in the one we wanted.
You cant just assume you can always make big payments!

Dont think its normal to have to work 24/7 just to have stuff
that is really pointless and made by china in the first place
therby creating jobs that are not here either!
Ya, thats WHY so many houses are in foreclosure.
The usa wasn't taught economics or living within it's means!
It also thinks the gubment should be weak and stay out of regulating,
thereby giving the crooks free rein and actually rewarding them!
Amazing! All systems check and plan is going according to schedule!
How are you gonna know all this living where you do anyway?
I think the title to this thread is questionable, being designed to
illicit arguments in the first place. IMO



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

Thank you very much!
Gad you gals get all bent out of shape when guys oggle over ya?
Prolly cause you are super sexy?Duh!
Have you ever thought that when your boobs show and you wear
tight clothes why guys go bonkers? Or if you are really pretty?
I am sure not siding with the neanderthalls that harrass girls,
but I must say most of you gals are showstoppers!
Maybe thats why the guys are going nuts?


BTW, your avatar is very sexy also!


[edit on 4-3-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Please dont take my word for it. Think of this;


Originally posted by RedCairo
I know endless numbers of women around me who just want to live and let live raise the kids, have a good life, and support equal rights for women but not with any vehemence. But if you take a tour of the NOW organization leadership you find all those sorts that give it a bad name.


And then think of all the other "unpopular" movements. Animal rights, Environmental protectionists, etc. And think about all the people you know who are for cleaning up the environment and preventing cruelty to animals that are moderate. And then look at who makes the news. Peta. Greenpeace and other groups that are more radical. The radical feminists, etc.

You dont get to see the reasonable, thoughtful, quiet supporters of unpopular (with the government or corporations) movements. The craziest and most extreme get trotted out to discredit the whole movement.

Even when the Vietnam War was being protested, they trotted out Jane Fonda, and all the hippies. But lots of quiet middle Americans were against that war too.

Its just the normal way those who have money and power portray their dissenters. They do it to make the undecided think the dissenters are a bunch of loons, and they do it to make the quiet supporters of that movement afraid to associate themselves with that movement.

Like I said, consider how many people on this board are reasonable intelligent people, and consider how conspiracy theorists are portrayed on television. Arent we made to look like people who are one day away from snapping and shooting up a Luby's or something? Lol.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Disgusted One
 


Disgusted One,

I too admire a woman who can use a weapon and is not gun shy.
Bought the woman I am seeing a five shot .357 revolver but load it with .38 specials. Wanted her to have a long gun too so I bought her an SKS rifle. She didn't like it. I wound up buying her an AK47 instead. Now I use the SKS. THe swap worked out....as I like the SKS much better than the other rifle.
She gets those 40/60 dollar nail jobs at the beauty shop so when we go shooting I buy her those surgical gloves to protect her nails. I don't care as long as she practices. No substitute for practice.

Stellar,

Good to see your post again. Hope all is well where you are located.

I don't necessarily buy into this concept like many on this thread.


Really? Why did women sometimes work longer a century before 'women' lib' could be called a official movement? Why did they need to take women out of the household to dumb it down when it was pretty dumb as it was? I mean what can women teach their children when they are not allowed access to anything outside of the home?


Men as well often worked longer hours in centuries past. This time warp technique is one sided to me. Also men working long hours and in dangerous environments did not lend itself to learning as well...much less teaching. This concept is often overlooked while promoting the popular victim defaults of today.
As I have been trying to explain..the crime is not against the men..it is only against the women. THe men tend towards expendability and disposability ..the crime is doing this to women.

Edrick,

I must have missed your post on page 13 of this thread. I had to look up as exactly what is meant by "Cognitive Dissonance." That is a new one to me. I wound up bookmarking it while I consider more in its entirety. Thanks for a new word/definition to consider.

I am slowly going through those videos you linked on/by Warren Farrell. I did not know that there were so many of them or that they even existed in video format. Listening to the first of them as I type this out.

Also I agree..men tend to take the jobs with the most risk and pressure on them. The pay follows. I am not saying that women do not do this..but they are more particular and aware of options and the view of options rather than the responsibility. They are as a whole much more aware of being phyically hurt/damaged and thereby lowering their value in the marketplace among other women..the competition. This was one of the first concepts I saw Warren Farrel make in his book "Why Men Are The Way They Are."
I have had numerous opportunities to have this verified.
However..I have also noticed that there is a growing number of males who exhibit this same fingerprint. To not take risks outside of certain arenas. Very femminine...even insecure.

By the way...I agree with what Warren states in that when men speak up..
to show the things or concepts for which they are sensitive and concerned..they get the results one sees on boards like this...while many women often state they want a man to be more sensitive. Strange dichotomy at work here. No one much wants to hear it in lieu of default settings.

Wow!! Edrick, I am listening to the begining of tape 4 of 19...where Warren explains the 7 to 1 ration of goods directed to women in the stores an shopping centers verses the men. This tape is very good in this regard and the direction Warren takes it in regard to the social roles of which I so often speak..the default settings. It is pretty deep.

Illusionsaregrander.


You know what the problem is? It is OT's victim mentality in full force here in this thread.


I dont agree with many of the stands of the males on this thread. and have spoken out so. I also dont agree with many of the stands of the females on this thread and am wont to speak out so.

Red Cairo,


I don't choose to live in poverty so unless a man were making a LOT of money I would likely continue working.


Very interesting statement here and appropriate. This is exactly the tack I am currently listening to in the #4 video which Edrick links by Warren Farrell. You are making precisely Warrens point in this. Thank you ..very timely. Video #5 continues on this tack as well.

Gotta go..lots to do before shoving off.

Orangetom


[edit on 4-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And then think of all the other "unpopular" movements. Animal rights, Environmental protectionists, etc. And think about all the people you know who are for cleaning up the environment and preventing cruelty to animals that are moderate. And then look at who makes the news. Peta. Greenpeace and other groups that are more radical. The radical feminists, etc.

You dont get to see the reasonable, thoughtful, quiet supporters of unpopular (with the government or corporations) movements. The craziest and most extreme get trotted out to discredit the whole movement.


Yes, you have a point there. Activists, or those we see in that role, tend to be lunatics no matter what the subject.

I was a vegetarian for a few years out of sheer love for animals. Yet looking at the PETA stuff today (Note: they've recently named "fish" as "sea kittens" to discourage people from the horror of eating them. This is the group that kills off the stray animals they get because the 'horror' of being a pet would be unfair to them...) makes me want to just go hunting and barbecue in front of everybody in defiance. They masquerade as simply wanting good treatment for animals but really it's a horrible political agenda, including doing everything possible against anybody having the ability to eat meat -- I eat lowcarb (so mostly meat and whole-foods) and so I see a lot of the political stuff in online areas for those topics, it's somewhere between hilarious and insane and its own form of totalitarianism.


Even when the Vietnam War was being protested, they trotted out Jane Fonda, and all the hippies. But lots of quiet middle Americans were against that war too.


That's true. A lot of soldiers were against it too, not that it helped.

Is it too late to shoot Jane anyway? Just for the moral of it and all.


Its just the normal way those who have money and power portray their dissenters. They do it to make the undecided think the dissenters are a bunch of loons, and they do it to make the quiet supporters of that movement afraid to associate themselves with that movement.


So... you must be implying they do this via the media. Of course the media is as many women as men, so . . . ?


Like I said, consider how many people on this board are reasonable intelligent people, and consider how conspiracy theorists are portrayed on television. Arent we made to look like people who are one day away from snapping and shooting up a Luby's or something? Lol.


You know, there are reasonable and intelligent people here, I agree.

There are also a lot of complete idiots and outright hysterical lunatics. I do think you have a good point about the moderate citizenry, and I love ATS, but in all seriousness, I do not think ATS is a good source of defense for your argument here.


Best regards,
PJ



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dodadoom
reply to post by vkey08
 

Thank you very much!
Gad you gals get all bent out of shape when guys oggle over ya?
Prolly cause you are super sexy?Duh!
Have you ever thought that when your boobs show and you wear
tight clothes why guys go bonkers? Or if you are really pretty?
I am sure not siding with the neanderthalls that harrass girls,
but I must say most of you gals are showstoppers!
Maybe thats why the guys are going nuts?


BTW, your avatar is very sexy also!


[edit on 4-3-2009 by dodadoom]


Why thank you

I don't think that I have in my life ever been called a showstopper, at least I certainly don't think I am, and yeah I've considered each and every thing you said...

I think that we're so far off topic now it's not funny but it's fun sometimes.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


Red Cairo,

Gott shove off in a few minutes..but wanted to respond to something which shocked me in your last post.


This is the group that kills off the stray animals they get because the 'horror' of being a pet would be unfair to them...)


Good grief Red Cairo!!
I did not know this!!?? What a shock!!

My beloved Orange Tabby..Oda Mae was a stray abandoned as a kitten at some apartments and meowing her way around the parking lots. When I got her I placed her in my garage. It took me about three/four weeks to get her to come to me..and trust that I would not hurt her. Lots of meowing back and forth between us and putting out food for her and then stepping back to give her space. She now has the run of my garage and her own two way door to get in and out. A special bed and lots of food when she wants it. She is pretty much a one person cat now days.
This is the first female orange tabby I have seen. Most of them have been males. So she is pretty special to me.

Nonetheless..what a shock and let down about PETA.
As shocking as that news tidbit was and is...thanks for informing me of that informations. I will remember it.

Sorry for straying off topic..but was shocked by what you posted.

Gotta shove off now,
Orangetom


[edit on 4-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by Jadette
 




So what do you do? Marry again, as quick as possible, to anyone?


Notice from page 2 of this thread...my post to Rockpuck and also Whitewave.
In particular my post to Whitewave.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jadette, do you know women who would be willing to work while the men stay home and are cared for in the manner that women traditionally were cared for??


Well, that would be me and my husband for several years of our marriage. In a few years, he will retire while I will go back to teaching.

And your point is...?


I do know alot of these women today. Alot of them have spent much of thier lives living off the system and in the fast food lane and only marry ..again and again..when they sense the options are running out.


I'm far more concerned about the girls who are pressured to have sex and have babies here in America... while the guys essentially act as sperm donors and vanish from their lives. That doesn't leave a girl with many options and (to be frank), most of them are very bad.


The interesting thing to me is that there appear to be no polls taken on this kind of trend though it is obviously all around us. THe sad thing is that the children often pay a high price for this conduct but the men get dogged for not doing enough about it.


Well, we could popularize men's wearing of condoms for a start. And popularize the idea to men that if you have a kid, you support the kid and act like a dad.


By the way Jadette...do you know many men who have this option in todays social structure. To marry to a woman to take care of them when the options/biology runs out??


Like my husband, who has idiopathic hypertrophic subaortic stenosis, diabetes, high blood pressure, and a whole host of other ailments? Actually, I'm not getting rid of him... he's too cute and too much fun. But our family will need to have one person who will essentially never retire -- because hospital bills for any medical emergency for him are going to be well over $300,000. Yes, I knew he had medical problems 34 years ago. I married him anyway. He's adorable. And I will teach (and do other things) until I drop dead at whatever job I'm at.

I know a number of women with older husbands who are in a similar situation. Perhaps it's our age and our gender that explains why you don't know any of them -- women my age don't sit around and whimper about tough situations.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
Perhaps the problem is with the notion that being the steward of the hearth is akin to slavery. Perhaps instead of fighting the "predefined" role which is DICTATED BY OUR BIOLOGY and evolved over thousands of years we could fight to have our role appreciated and protected without financial, societal and physical repruccsions.


Actually, it's the very stiff and unrealistic roles.

I am *NOT* a "baby" person. They're small, noisy, somewhat irritating, and time consuming to deal with. I have worked in child care, I raised two kids who love me dearly... but I am not a "mommy." I had a good "mommy" role model in my own mother, but it just didn't stick.

I'm great with teenagers, though. I'm great with buying cars and computers and so forth.

Hubby's the one who adores babies, doesn't mind diapers, feeds the little darlings that mushed up food. He's a great "mommy."

"Mommy-ness" isn't dictated by our biology, as many horror stories of mothers who abuse and kill their kids will show. Many women are lousy mothers, even with good role models in their family. Evolution didn't set us up as dishwashers and cooks (hubby's a better cook than I am.) There's no gene for knowing how long a pot roast should sit in an oven -- and humans have survived millions of years of people who could barely cook pot roasts.

The role of mother is defined by society, and what a "mother" is varies wildly depending on what culture you're looking at.

I support wholeheartedly my dear daughter-in-law's staying home and raising our grandchild... but if she'd put the little one in daycare and went off to be a career mom, I'd have supported that (emotionally, as well as showing up to take the little one out on more trips.)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join