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 Illusionsaregrander
I dont feel that women working has had a negative impact on families.
1) Poor women have always had to work. As have women who were divorced, abandoned, widowed, etc. Now they can actually afford to feed, clothe, and educate their children. This is a positive thing.
2)Before women had the right to work for decent pay, many women were forced by economics to put up with physical and emotional abuse. (as were their children who witnessed it) Now they can leave, and at the very least, less children have to grow up watching Mom get her butt whipped regularly.
It still happens, I know, but now more women can leave, because they can afford to support themselves.
3)Women in the past had so much physical housework they werent watching their kids and telling them stories 24/7. They sent them out of the house while they scrubbed, cleaned and cooked by hand. Kids arent getting less hours of the day of parental attention because of women working outside the home.
4)No one wants to blame the media. They dont want to blame the violent content, nor do they want to blame our addiction to it. Our society would be much better off if women continued to work outside the home, and families spent their leisure time together, doing things, talking, not plopped down in front of computers, TVs, video games, or on the phone. The American family is NOT worse off because of women working outside the home. Its worse off because even when the whole family is home, they arent spending quality time together.
No one is claiming that women working during WW2 ruined families. Because it didnt. The men were gone, and women were working, and families were fine. But every house did not have a huge black hole in their living room sucking up all the attention of the family members.
Originally posted by Marigold
reply to post by Byrd
Women ARE biologically built to be mothers, how can you deny that? We evolved to be the main care taker, we have breasts to feed our children with, how could a man be the main caretaker if he couldn't feed his young?
To some degree in homo sapiens, yes. But the caretaker need not be the mother. Many women, for instance, can't breastfeed (and there was a class of women in earlier society who basically earned their living as human "cows", producing milk for a number of babies not their own.
My point has been through out that we as a society should appreciate and support whomever has chosen to be the keeper of the hearth. We should support that person not just with words, but with actions. That person should be protected legally and financially. That person would respected.
Actually, it did. We have
* child labor laws
* laws against cruelty to women
* "safe houses" for abused families
* school meal programs for disadvantaged kids
* the right to vote
* the right to own property
* the right to have bank accounts
* the right to enter military service
* the right to become astronauts
* the right to become physicians
* the right to become engineers and scientists (and computer programmers)
* the right to own large companies
* the right to become CEO of a large company
* the right to become diplomats and ambassadors
* the right to run for Congress
* the right to run for mayor
* the right to run for police chief
* the right to run for local government positions
...and on and on and on. Wages have gone up, though not on par yet.
We also got involved with environmental issues, too.
Overall, it's been fairly successful in spite of some heavy resistance.
the differences become apparent when you consider a man getting a job, for less money, doing what a woman traditionally has done. even though both are perfectly capable of doing the job in the manner required, one is paid less than the other due to gender.
some ladies only buy fancy clothes for other ladies.. meaning that they want to impress their peer group and not necessarily men.
some men only participate in sports to impress other men...meaning that they want to impress their peer group and not necessarily women.
Our technology has shielded us from much of the world and other conditions. It has made us better consumers and not better peoples.
I agree with that. But what has it to do with women?
i didn't say any of things you claimed i did in that post. wrong person.
what i keep saying and will continue to say is: stop stereotyping.
Yes it is. They just don't get the checks. It is their children that the taxpayers are supporting, AND many of them don't even do the day to day snot wiping and diaper changing end of it. You guys always forget that there is a male involved in every baby. So, he is benefiting. His crappy genes get passed down right along side the crappy female genes and the taxpayers make sure the child survives to have more children. He benefits even more, because he doesn't even have to be saddled with the child, or the stigma of being a "welfare father."
This of course does not mean no one dies, but to even try to claim that there has been no lessening of risk and death to males is just a flat out lie. Or total ignorance. Safety equipment, machine guards, harnesses, testing equipment to make sure manholes are not full of lethal gasses, blowers, MSDS sheets, lock out tag out procedures, fines from OSHA, etc, etc, have all contributed to far less injury and death on the job in risky professions.
Body armor, armored vehicles, mine sweepers, night vision, longer range weapons, etc., etc., have also made the terribly dangerous profession of the military somewhat safer. You cant eliminate ALL risk, either from childbirth or war, but please lets not dramatize here and pretend that all the protections of society are directed towards women.
Ludicrous. If my brother were alive today I believe he would say, "Then they're p*ssies!" A truly sexist remark itself of course but his favorite adjective for spineless wimpering dolts. Of course he was one of those men women bitch about...
As for mandated $: women result often in men having to pay child support -- but men result often in women having to pay probably 80% of the cost of raising a kid even WITH child support, let alone how many raise them without it, and that's despite the fact that in every case a man was 50% of that child coming about. So we'll have to stick with 'giving it away voluntarily' as the complaint since in the mandated child support case the women are vastly worse off than men.
It is never explained that men have no control over their own income and they voluntarily give it to their women and so this makes any gripes about workplace inequality etc. moot?!--come on, that's not logical at all either. Why should those two go together except maybe for you personally? I have not seen those two topics particularly related in people around me or in my
You are right here, it is porn. Literary porn rather than visual porn. But, porn none-the -less. However all of that "how do they have time for it if they are victimized" stuff, makes a lot less sense. How do man have all the time to read the books geared predominantly towards them? Action adventure, Sci-fi, Westerns (which can also be literary porn, btw) endless magazines on cars, motorcycles, computers and electronics (consumption porn) not to mention just flat old nekkid girl porn. (Or guy porn if you are so inclined.)
After all, the "womens" porn magazine, Playgirl, has more male subscribers.
Which is what I think your problem is. You choose to associate with women who bolster your stereotypes. Ones who care more about their nails than being a good shot. Ones who sit around and watch daytime TV, rather than do something more productive. And then, you judge all women by the ones you choose. Who you end up with says more about you than the opposite gender.
If women are reading these in mind-boggling numbers, it would tell me that en masse they must have a great desire to feel happier than they are--which would support the opposite of your theory.
Using beauty instead of finance this exists equally in the other direction.
Based on personal experience, I see more of the opposite -- women marrying men from a lower income class than themselves.
I think you're confusing "equal" with "the same" here
Men getting a job for less moneys than a woman doing the same work...tends to leave women very disgruntled..even resentful. [...] This is because it tends to leave women more responsible and less optional....ie..it changes their status.
Another translation of this trend line is that men or males make themselves disposable and expendable by sports conditioning ..ie competition.
No one asks what RISKS,,abuse or dehumanization a man had to undergo to get the moneys to make such purchases for the woman...or woman and children.
Zero emotional attachment is protected for the male. [...] Nothing or next to nothing is protected for the male or man. [...] There is not even a emotional safety net for the male. he is out there alone...left to navigate burdens for which he will often not see or witness the fruition ..yet pay a high price in abuse, labor and dehumanization to acquire for others.
Do men tend to debase, abuse, and dehumanize themselves in order to accomplish this for their women and children..ie..expendable and disposable...or are most men drunkards, abusers of women and children etc etc etc??
Ludicrous. If my brother were alive today I believe he would say, "Then they're p*ssies!"
Mostly emoting..which is precisely what you are attempting to do here. Thinking that no one will notice it and ,by shame, fall immidiately in line with what is expected..a given ..a default. Is this not the very thing the women are complaing about?? The defaults?? See the double standard here?? [...] Yet when a man makes them there is obvously something very wrong. He needs to get in line....by intimidation techniques.
What I am saying is that there is no such support system for the male..expecially emotionally. Women by social role do get a substitute wallet without the risks, liabilities of marriage..men get less than zero..which is one of the biggest complaints of the men...though I dont think most men are even capable of vocalizing it verses vocalizing a point spread. Really stupid of them!!
Is there something implicit in these books, magazines, and programs?? Something not spoken.
Danielle Steele has a very predictable format in a lot of her books and that is ..male death equals female glory and beauty..status. Male death is often core to the plot line.
Once I noted this fingerprint I was able to see it often repeated in Video format in many of the Chick Flicks. Titanic comes to mind. Male sacrifice and male death core to the plot line. Don'T worry ..Tom Clancy is not much different.
Nonetheless...there is a huge market for this type of material...thus once again asking ..who has the time and moneys for this huge market?? Also once again..indicating a lack of victimization....particularly economic victimization as well as time victimization.
I am making reference to the concept that the sex/porn market is not exclusively a male market. Women are bombarded by this stuff constantly and more subtilty than males can even fathom.
I think of how many people laughed at me over the years for riding my mopeds and today a scooter to and fro work. When gasoline got over .$2.00 per gallon they stopped laughing. I didn't care one whit either way. I knew what the real deal was all along and I own two cars and a truck.
Oh..by the way..on your other post..I do think that is the name of that woman talk show host..Laura Schlessinger..Yes. I do not even know if they are still on the air. There is another woman I like too but I think more recent and not quite the same caliber as Laura. Her name is Tammy Bruce.
Originally posted by Red Cairo
I couldn't find a specific thing to quote, but I feel as if I've been overly hard in some way. Sometimes on the internet it's easy to slip into discussion that disattaches from the diplomacy any of us would have in person. I apologize if I've done that somewhere here. PJ
Women are twice as likely as men to work in the public sector. ..
Yet they are barely represented in the useful public services of firefighting and arresting people. E
Originally posted by computerwiz32
reply to post by Whisper67
Builder burge were behind letting women have right to vote and get jobs.
Originally posted by HulaAnglers
a couple of days ago, my very intuitive girlfriend had a dream she was raped in her own home and screamed herself awake when they were going after her daughter.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
What the body politic realized was that the women or female can be stroked emotionally for a vote in the voting booth under security issues more easily than for opportunity issues and also more easily and emotionally stroked than the male. And there were up and coming ..a huge block of women voters. Get the right candidate with the right issues and one is guaranteed to get the women's vote..especially true in high electorial vote states where the social structure and economies are more developed and there were to be found a larger number of women. The woman's vote would be essential in achieving these elections and re elections.
Issues for security verses opportunity were to be the calling card for these votes. And the body politic was to eventually pander to these very security issues for votes. This continues unto today.
Interesting. I wonder if this paradigm at work, as you call it, is anything like the paradigm that says women must LOOK a certain way in our culture. That she must have her hair, nails, and face, made up in such a way, and wear shoes that damage her feet, and wear skirts that leave her legs exposed to the cold even in brutal winters. You know, that paradigm that makes women judge themselves constantly by the most superficial of qualities, their youth and beauty.
Poor poor little mens. Oh wait, aren't those politicians largely men? No matter. Poor poor little mens.
Is there anything that could reasonably BE changed that would improve the situation?