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 rizla
Yeah, I basically agree. It would be good idea to make one parent (male or female) a full-time carer to children at any one time.
40-50 years ago, women did not work once they had children. Can we seriously say we are better off now that both parents *have to* work? Or do we just have to work harder to be secure?
Women during the Industrial Revolution
Women faced different demands during the industrial age to those that they face today. Women of the working classes would usually be expected to go out to work, often in the mills or mines. As with the children and men the hours were long and conditions were hard. Some examples of work specifically done by Women can be found amongst the links at the foot of this page.
Those who were fortunate may have become maids for wealthier families, others may have worked as governesses for rich children. The less fortunate may have been forced to work in shocking conditions during the day and then have to return home to conduct the households domestic needs (Washing, Cookng and looking after children etc.)
Women also faced the added burden of societies demand for children. The industrial age led to a rapid increase in birth rates which clearly has an impact upon the physical strength of the mothers. It was not uncommon for families to have more than 10 children as a result of this demand: and the woman would often have to work right up to and straight after the day of the childs birth for finanical reasons, leaving the care of the new born child to older relatives.
Originally posted by jackalope_hunter
I wrote an essay about this actually. There are specific roles that need to be played, but which gender plays which role can be switched more easily now than ever.
I heard a plebeian in one of my classes suggest that women always vote for the tallest candidate. Which made me wonder if candidates who appear to be better suited genetically for mating get more votes from the opposite gender. Seems plausable enough.
but which gender plays which role can be switched more easily now than ever.
Must say that i am quite surprised by your views on women and how they apparently went from having not even the power to vote, or really pick husbands in the west ( god forbid we mention the East) to having all this power you suggest they do? It's been said that the best advice for a good marriage is to marry a reasonable women and then to do everything she tells you to; is that what the men of America/west all suddenly did fifty years ago?
As to specific statements most jobs still go to men ( and they are still higher paid per year of experience&education) as logically men pretty much live to support their and do as well as they can by their families and can and will forever more continue to do so.
While economic and social conditions determine if women have full time or part time professional employment, or remain at home to work harder than they ever would at ' the office' to raise the kids and maintain a livable environment.
Men on average can't provide the same level of primary care and on average will not be satisfied with such a role as we are simply not psychologically or biologically evolved for it. I am not suggesting that men can not but in terms of averages and 'efficiency' i would like to see why you think this can be different.
On another issue women logically do not risk their lives , especially not pointlessly, as they have and are aware that they have intrinsic value in being able to give society children. Men on the other hand are for at least until they get married just busy trying to prove they have value enough to attract a women that will have them. Men have very little intrinsic value and society's in general understands this well enough to have them do any and everything that is remotely dangerous.
There's a few other things but hopefully you will care to elaborate on these issues?
they have intrinsic value in being able to give society children
Men have very little intrinsic value and society's in general understands this well enough to have them do any and everything that is remotely dangerous.
Originally posted by oneclickaway
I think the evidence of the world speaks for itself.
Who holds the wealth?
Who has the power?
Who are the elite?
Who has stolen, cheated and squandered the money?
Who not only allows but creates situations where children starve to death?
Who are the vast majority of paedophiles?
Who practises the vast majority of domestic violence?
Who devised and practices grotesque and sick torture methods?
Who creates all wars?
Who commits genocide?
Who would toss a baby in the air to land on a bayonet or behead someone?
Who would believe people should be killed as they are not of benefit to society?
Who therefore has even a hope of having the empathy and emotional maturity required to lead and administer a country or its finances….and who should be entrusted with the power to do so?
Seems that for all time those that have forcibly placed themselves in power in every sphere have failed so utterly dismally that now they threaten the safety of the entire world.
Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by ickylevel
just wondering here.....
would these women be having so many kids if they could say no to marriage or to the sexual advances their husbands make toward them??
if it's more like they are being married off with no say in the matter, then forced into sexual activity, that then leads to more pregnacies, well.....
do you really think that society needs to demean the wants, needs, and desires of over half the population, so so you can have more people in your society than you have work to keep them busy, or resources to feed and care for??
na, don't think so.....