Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
now being a women is not about having a solid man or family, but being a titty flashing, binge drinking, morning after pill taking slut

Do you really think this highly of your mother and sisters? Your friends must be a real treat, too. Nice. ::smirk::

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Whisper67]

Originally posted by Grumble
The economic boom of the eighties was largely the result of women choosing careers over the home in great numbers. Our society has been shaped by reality since.

And inflation has gone through the roof.
Second line goes here

nixie_nox

And we both want to stay home. A lot of it is nature. Doesn't mean one sex is better then the other, just designed for different jobs.

Quite right, I don't believe it has anything at all to do with "who is more able, superior". The traditional role in Nature, most of the time, is that the female sex takes care of the offspring. I have only ever known one stay at home dad, and I hazard a guess his job was far harder then mine.

But any more it's very difficult to have one family member working. You get a bigger tax break and credits, but it doesn't make up for the addition of a second income.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Alora, this is correct, in America we have not been able to sustain a family with one income since the 1960's.

I have been married for 23 years, and I worked maybe one of those years. I stayed home to raise my kids. My husband retired military (enlisted) and now is is a blue collar worker. We have lived comfortably on what he makes. We've never done without. I am happy staying at home. I cook homecooked meals every night. I spend lots of quality time with my husband and my kids. I have time to really take care of my husband and kids. We are both happy with the situation and I'm happy to have been able to do this.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by virraszto]

Obviously, with the number of single mothers in America alone, how do you account for them working? It has nothing to do with the "female"- only the one odd out partner of a couple who I suppose would have the lesser income; whether it be man or woman. Personally, I am a stay at home mother, it is the hardest job I have ever had (and I am hardly uneducated in fact...I have twice as many degrees as my husband...), and you know what-in this economy if I could find a job that suited my lifestyle and was best for my daughter I'd take it-hands down!
I'm sorry two incomes ruined that economy....but how does this relate to the mothers?????? A bit sexist in that regard...I'd say...
To be fair, however, I suppose in the last 30 years it has gone from male oriented to dual incomes...so you would blame the females for becomming active in the workplace..

And what a better way to destroy a family unit but from within itself?
Weak family units lead to many things like disfunctional homes and inadiquate provisions(including emotional). The role of a man as a protector is gone and a family is left to live "on the gring". Work 80 hr between the couple, take care of 2.5 kids and yada yada yada.

Cant worry about saving the world when you have to feed your family.

This is actually economic fact, it cannot be argued.

I can agree...with some of that. However, don't you think it would be responsible to ask the ultimate question which is WHY? Why did it become the norm? What happened in the 80s to cause this change? Inflation. Dig deeper still.

The OP, including your personal comments, came off sounding like 'blame' on women. I know you're going to agree with me on the next part, really lol -

Was it that women were tired of having to deal with children, supporting their husbands, and cooking three squares a day? Of course not, but you see, there is power in words and how ideas and theories are presented. Even if the source you cited didn't express those sentiments, you had the power to do so in your interpretation and presentation.

The economic situation in the world so very volatile and we have our ideas to the endgame and where this is all heading...wouldn't you agree that is an awful lot to lay on your loving women? If this is indeed part of the 'grand plan' I can gaurantee you I know of the gender responsible.

Oh, and looking forward to that next thead! ::wink and smile:: Peace.

Rockpuck,

I don't think you are taking this concept far enough. What is often not known by even the males is that it is the women in the more economically affluent economies/nations who determine where when and how most of the moneys are spent. Particularly on big ticket items. Homes, cars, washers, driers, furniture, food..et al etc etc etc. This is seldom determined by the male but the female. The males are mostly relegated to the back seat role of taking the risks to support such a system of consumption rates.

This has gotten so bad now days that the male is taking a back seat to his children and coming in third place or further down the line ..last place.

The primary consumers and determiners of economics in this affluent country are women and children..not the male. This also means by such patterns that the important vote at election time is the female and or the children when they come of age...18...not the male or the ones taking the greatest risk to keep such a system going and or afloat.

Factor in this type of thinking and see what kind of picture you now get when you look at a credit crunch.

Remember also Rockpuck ..that there is today a new generation of males...males not men..who like many women define themselves by what they can consume..not by what they know or can do. What they expect of others..not of themselves. This is very feminine. They become competition for these women ..not men. They are high maintenance.

This high maintenance consumer oriented credit system has become the norm in many economically affluent social structures. Unfortunately most do not realize how high maintenance it is. Male and female.
To some ..in these social structures we now see that it has become an entitlement. This is false thinking but expedient for political purposes...ie..votes. This is also why so many administrations for office are security oriented..not opportunity oriented..no matter what party they claim...it is about votes.

This will probably change here shortly with a severe credit crunch. You know...musical chairs and such. The question for some of us thinking ..is who is willing to work and risk for the remaining chairs ...and who will get them by default/entitlement....ie...for votes. Remember this as we watch/listen to events transpiring in the future.

Originally posted by white wave
Perhaps this time we should fire all the men and let them stay home with the kids, clean house, cook the meals, etc. ad infinitum. This will free up the work force to accept women into "useful" positions like firefighting and arresting people.

Good luck with this one, Rock Puck. LOL. You may have bitten off more than you can chew.

I agree..we should fire all the men and replace them with women so that men can assume the traditional female roles and complain about their "victimization." The men should stay home with the children while the women go out and sustain severe risk to keep the system going at great risks/danger to their very souls and physical persons in the manner that men have traditionally done.

Hey Whitewave, If this happens will we see a change in the television programming formats to male oriented programming?? What will replace the DNA test..the lie detector test?? How about talk radio?? How about the commercial formats?? Will this be the end of the DeBeers commerical??

I know today's enlightened woman cannot wait to give up all the social perks they take so for granted and assume traditional male roles to keep this system going at great social and physical costs/risks to themselves.

It is a fair swap I think Whitewave. I know that today's enlightened women believe in this much equality. Don't you??
I cant wait to take a lie detector test or a DNA test on this one Whitewave.

I also know that women cant wait to be the breadwinner and then turn over to their men ..the ability to determine what kind of homes, cars, furniture, insurance policies, vacations, washers, driers, food..etc etc on which the moneys are spent. The big ticket items. I know lots of women who would love this scenario..don't you???

There are millions upon millions of women out here who cannot wait to take risks with thier physical calling card...their beauty assets and sacrafice this asset for the benifit of mankind..the future..et al by taking risks as fireman, police, soldiers..and under go the hardships and risks associated with such disposability and expendability....as a career opporturnity...while turning over their moneys earned at great risks to the men and children. Dont you?? Todays women do believe in this much equality right?? It is not just talk...right!!??

I believe I have stated ..though it has been awhile now..that if women were capable and in sufficient numbers available...they would be firing all the men and replacing them with women since it is so obvious that women work for less wages than do men. Do we see this happening across the board?? Are the women in fact willing to do this for mankind?
I am not debating the point that women do not take risks...I am debating the point ..do women take risks outside of a particular social role..a given.
A concept taken for granted?? Socially. Will they in fact do this for the man as a career..in the manner the men have traditionally done??
This is what you are describing in your flip flop?? Or are you describing ..that women are willing to do this in a spirit of equality but not lose their femininity in the process?? I dont think most of the women I know would be willing to do this. Particularly for a man. They might do it for children..but not for a man.

I am also making the point that socially and politically..ie...economically there is a system in play which factors in this belief system ..that the female is the prime determiner..of economics/credit..not the male. Therefore it is the female who must be politically sold for her vote..along with the other high maintenance consumers...children of voting age.
It is these people who must be sold for the security status of the political systems ie..economic systems in play.....not the males.


I also think that in the future ..with consumer oriented trends and education standards ...that women may not be willing to do this for children as well ..verses consumer orientatioin values and thinking beliefs.
I see this more and more with alarm..women without any mothering and nuturing instincts..but great consumer instincts. Males too but really noticabale among the females.

Well Whitewave..I am rambling somewhat .but I think you know the point I am making here better than most of the others.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



[edit on 3-3-2009 by orangetom1999]

Allow me to make a few personal comments about myself. First off, it should be very evident I abhor labels. Just as with races, I don't think you can quantify a single behavioral characteristic upon one gender. I make fun of those DeBeers commercials and I don't bite into all of the commercialism. My husband works hard for our family and does quite well and I am not out there shopping all afternoon on whims suggested by advertising. This chic is smarter then that. I did buy some Mighty Putty once - I was so hoping that dude would quit screaming at me if I did!

I had a very difficult time trasitioning into the role of stay at home mother and wife. In some aspects, I felt as if I lost my identity for awhile. I had held a job since I was 16. And also, you wouldn't believe how some of us stay at home moms are looked upon by our working peers. I have been made to feel 'less than' on more then one occasion. When I decided, on Sept 12 2001 actually, to change my thinking to a more nurturing role ( I was newly pregnant at the time) and retire my briefcase - people looked at me as if I was from PlanetX. 'you quit your job! ::gasp::' It's almost expected for all women and mothers to be working these days. I've done the math, and even though I can draw in a large paycheck - the amount I would have to spend in childcare and attention taken from my family is so not worth it.

I'm reminded from this discourse of the success of the pagan matriarchal societies. Women ruled and it was peaceful. Men were content to do masculine activites (and have multiple partners - see it's not all bad) and the women oversaw the political issues of the day and nurture their children at the same time.

I am so very grateful to be a stay at home mom. I love it and now that I've transitioned - I am truly in my element. I will concur that I think having *mothers* in the workplace actually can contribute to crime. Our children need guidance, love, and attention. At the same time, some of those mothers really have no choice and I refuse to give them anything else to hold upon their consciousness - I believe they carry enough guilt.

interesting, i give you credit for your "out of the box thinking"

i give you credit for having some giant balls though too

theyre probably going to be kicked balls if you actually say this away from the computer, but big balls


this is one of those things, that even if it is the case, id personally rather deal with the consequences of inflation rather than the wrath of those kinda chicks that are going to tear into you for saying what you are saying

Insurance keeps several women working that I know. Their husbands are wealthy - but in one case, one's husband has had a heart attack at a young age, he owns his own business, no one will cover him at all. The second, it is her - she had a hip implant at a young age due to a stress fracture, and cancer, and can't find coverage. Her husband also owns his own business.

the first one - her husband is a millionaire but she drives that schoolbus every day for insurance. The second one, her husband owns his own business and they are millionaires or close to it, with home, everything paid for, and she's working as a health care aid because of INSURANCE.

A lot of families maybe could let one member stay at home...but insurance has us all by the cojones. Tying it to jobs ...something has to give.

My own family thought we needed 2 incomes. My income was 1.75x my husbands but my son had trouble so I quit to homeschool him. Heck, it was cake. We've been fine. I sorta think when you do right by your family though, as best you know how, you're often blessed.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by hadriana]

The upside of women working has been the release of technology a lot faster than in the past as there is more money around to make it worthwhile.
While women were at home and there was only one income, the technological advances were going at a snails pace.

So think about THAT the next time you want to complain about working women.