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.

 

The roles of men and women

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Yeah, truth,

Men are crazy and women are crazy - here is to a great world!




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Venomilk

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


You are such a pain in the arse!



anti-trolls always are


Love you, want to give you a snog and cuddle!
That's why people are on welfare too, these days # is so expensive you need the welfare just to get on your feet. That's so sad, people condemn people for being on Welfare but this nut wants most women to "Stay in their place!" I don't think so.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
This whole thread "PASS THE BLAME!". PATHETIC!
edit on 8-9-2011 by MConnalley because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
I don't agree. I think this is exaggerated. I think the job problem is because of outsourcing, and technological progress which eliminates need for human workers more and more.

But I do have my beefs with some of the feminist movement, which I think downplayed, for the most part, the value of femininity, in exchange for masculinity. Instead of fighting for women to be acknowledged as valuable in the ways they are different from men, they fought to have them recognized as valuable because they can be like men.

I think changes are not so simple. There would have to be some deep changes in the collective values first- like before the women go home, we'd have to raise the value of ones homelife to match that of ones career life . Otherwise they are just stepping back into the "inferior" role.

We'd need recognition of a stable home and family to be seen as just important to the society as a whole, as is working outside and making money. THEN it might be in their benefit to step in there and play that part again- and be recognized as valuable.

We'd have to have a change in values (at least in America) upon dependance, and passivity. As it is, very few Americans see any value at all to dependance. Being a child is undesireable because you are in a state of dependance- so we get toddlers in tiaras and teens that are having sex early and trying to be adults when they are not emotionally mature enough to do so responsibly.

Interdependance doesn't have much acknowledgement from us. The idea of staying at home while the husband works reeks of dependance and repulses us. But if a man needs someone to provide his food, his clothes, etc. Then it is exchange- it not one way dependance! It is interdependance!

They don't want to be part of that either. But without exchanges of interdependance, you have no real relationships. No one wants to be vulnerable to another that way.

I guess I am trying to say we need more cultural changes before we just try to tell men and women to step back into such roles.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MConnalley
 


Preach, OP should be blaming the government for the lack of jobs, i.e. sending our companies overseas, immigrants coming in and replacing the entire workforce.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
So which job do you want to take. Maybe day care for all the single parents, Or maybe wiping butts all day at the local nursing home. Maybe all those women might be better at the job than the men they have replaced. Most working women are usually not only working but also running their household. Honestly when was the last time you came home from work, cooked diner, did house work and laundry, then got the kids off to bed. I'll concede that some men do, maybe even you, but most don't. So before we talk about kicking women out of the work force why don't we do something about the illegal work force.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
So many replies - thank you to the real people.

To the toublemakers and the trolls - eff off.


We're not meaning to cause "Trouble" as you spell it above
We're just asking your logic behind our questions, where and how did you come up with your brilliant analysis ?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


actually, she should be blaming industrialization!
before industrialization hit, she could stay home, and still earn a living!!
sewing, weaving, baking, gardening, candle making, and a slew of other options....
when the machines came, she couldn't compete, and welll, if she wanted the money, she had to go to the factory to earn it!! heck, her kids might actually have to go along with her and work also, just for enough money to hold the family above water....
gee, back then, they had the children working also.....
and well, don't know of any men complaining about how the women and kids were taking their jobs away.
for some reason, don't think it's the women working that is the problem....
I think it's the fact that the machines were moved to places like india and china, ect....
the dream of women being able to stay at home just moves further and further away...
can't wait till we colonize space!!! that will be one long commute to work everyday!!!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 

Amen, I don't want to learn Hindu or Mandarin just to have a job that used to be in my neighbourhood.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Biologically, you are correct. Women did indeed evolve to nurture. Men did indeed evolve to provide. But the reality is we more then just our genetic make up.

I do believe that there is a correlation between the mutated Woman's Rights Movement and the state of Western Society. The truth is, men and women should have absolutely equal rights. A woman should never be treated like property. A woman should not be abused, or be forced to stay in an abusive marriage, or even indeed a marriage in which she is not happy.

Men and Women are NOT equal. They are different in many ways. They CAN do various roles, they can nurture their offspring, and if need be provide for them. But, is it really ideal that we live in a society where people in stable relationships, raising children feel like they HAVE to both work? Their children are raised by others, their morals are shaped by media, their milestones are celebrated via tweets and texts...as a society we have lost something.

I support the right of a woman to have a career, to be paid equally, to CHOOSE to have or not have children, to choose their mates, to choose the duration of their relationships, to own property...ect;

I wonder why, we have allowed a society to develop that women who CHOOSE to be the nurturers we are designed to be, are looked down upon, disrespected, believed abused, and downright disenfranchised from womanhood.

I work in an office with mostly all women. They have babies, and most are back to work within 3 months, their babies are in daycare because they say they HAVE to work...They have two cars, big houses, fancy clothes, their kids go to private schools, have the latest gadgets but they lack what is the most important thing to a child, and indeed to our society, and that is a PARENT to shape them into mature, responsible, good people.

I do not have children, I have a career, but should I conceive, I will give up my career, my gadgets, my foreign holidays and switch my attention to rearing of offspring, shaping the future. If that means I can't afford my summer trips to the Spanish coast so be it..

Of course, it is naive to think that families only come from the traditional family unit, today we have single mothers, fathers, they have their own unique challenges and that is where I think as a society we need to weigh up the pros versus cons to single working parents. I personally would rather my taxes go to subsidize them or the first few years, in order to lay a foundation in their off spring which results in GOOD PRODUCTIVE citizens.

I am a woman and I embrace my biology. I just want to e respected for that, but I'm not.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
So many replies - thank you to the real people.

To the toublemakers and the trolls - eff off.


We're not meaning to cause "Trouble" as you spell it above
We're just asking your logic behind our questions, where and how did you come up with your brilliant analysis ?



and poking holes in your theory...
you claim women are nurturers, that they wouldnt want war. i assume you dont mean all women, but lets look specifically at the most influential as of right now
hillary clinton
susan rice
samantha power

now please, if im trolling you can refute my claim by posting more women than that that are anti war, and have just as much power. this is only one of the points you make, so if this point is wrong (or you just have no idea what you are talking about) then the whole premise is flawed or wrong
see?
a troll would be agreeing with you to an extreme, so drop it and back yourself up or you are doing what trolls do

which is play on emotions for shock value it seems, and never try to prove your statements (just in case you dont know what that word means



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


Heart,

Thank you so much for correcting my spelling!

And where I came up with it is obvious and it is called common sense, something which should not be called common, because a lot of people do not have lot.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


Heart,

Thank you so much for correcting my spelling!

And where I came up with it is obvious and it is called common sense, something which should not be called common, because a lot of people do not have lot.

I'm using my common sense, If I wasn't I would've took your fairy dust coated idea and left it as it was, but I'm asking Questions

We aren't in the 16, 17 or the 18th century. If any woman wants a job, she might as well go get one. Some of these sorry arse men around, ethnicity doesn't matter. Every men is not a sleaze-bag but some of them are.

Women aren't going to starve because you, some anti-feminist says so. I listen to all opinions but you, aren't making sense. If women or no one is supposed to work, then what are they supposed to do ?

Oh, I understand now. You're looking at the barefoot and pregnant option for life aren't you ? There aren't many women out there that will go for that one, good luck finding somebody who will

edit on 8-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Venomilk
 


Hi Venom,

And you certainly are venomous!

Why did you even bother replying?

Yes, women are supposed to be nurterers.

And yes, men are warfarers.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


Heart,

Thank you so much for correcting my spelling!

And where I came up with it is obvious and it is called common sense, something which should not be called common, because a lot of people do not have lot.


common sense has proof behind it, but where is yours?
or do you not like people asking for proof of your ASSUMPTIONS?
i get it, you wont reply. seems you should be able to defend your position very well if it is, indeed, true

and only venomous to those that refuse to back up bold claims, and ignore instances that disprove your assumptions. so where is the reply of all the women in power voting against war? i gave you three names in the current administration, and left out a dozen or so of the ones from congress. so prove they are nurturers. seems the ones in power should be the biggest nurturers, aye?
edit on 8-9-2011 by Venomilk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by Venomilk
 


Hi Venom,

And you certainly are venomous!

Why did you even bother replying?

Yes, women are supposed to be nurterers.

And yes, men are warfarers.


Sweetheart, If I get seriously angry you will have WW3 on your hands.That is war-faring. I scared one of my cousins so bad I haven't seen him 2003, I was 8. At the time he was 195cms. A 8 year old Female child can run away an overgrown man, and to think! I was more #ed up then than I am now


The only thing I"ll be nursing in the years will be no baby but a liquor bottle.


edit on 8-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by EmilNomel
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 

S&F for you are so right!

there was a very good reason why the rockefellers started and funded the feminist movement...
edit on 8-9-2011 by EmilNomel because: (no reason given)


Any proof?

If that's realy true, then what was the reason?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunShineKid

Originally posted by EmilNomel
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 

S&F for you are so right!

there was a very good reason why the rockefellers started and funded the feminist movement...
edit on 8-9-2011 by EmilNomel because: (no reason given)


Any proof?

If that's realy true, then what was the reason?

The Rockerfellers ? Now I'm going to play the stupid role, what the hell do they have to with this ?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join