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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 

care's=cares......
you're doing it on purpose???




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 

care's=cares......
you're doing it on purpose???

Like we said before, Troll.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 

actually, I raised some p retty good points,
women have always worked, there has always been a significant portion of the population that has had to work....
I even provided a link...
I then brought up the fact that at one time, we also had alot of children working also....
and well, I don't believe the was this outcry that the children, much less the women were taking men's jobs at the time!!! there were plenty of jobs!!

so, well, what happened to all these jobs???

my question above was serious by the way.....
the mistakes in spelling....on purpose???

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



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

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


that is the question... isn't it?

most of the answer is in the original post...
i would only add this: perhaps more slaves working for the elite?
edit on 8-9-2011 by EmilNomel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


I AM NOT A TROLL!

I am sick and tired of people saying I am a troll!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by EmilNomel

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


that is the question... isn't it?

perhaps, most of the answer is in the original post...
i would only add this: perhaps more slaves working for the elite?

That is the whole question, where do they come in at ?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 


so post things that back you up? as trolls never do. heres an easy way to prove you arent a troll, do the opposite of hat a troll does. an intelligent conversation, with views backed by real world examples that others can view, not whatever assumptions you can come up with in your fantasy world of a mind...
but if not, you are a troll

and if you are sick and tired of being called a troll, (if you arent) dont you think its because you post like one? just a thought. being sick and tired of it implies it happens regularly
edit on 8-9-2011 by Venomilk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Venomilk
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 


so post things that back you up? as trolls never do. heres an easy way to prove you arent a troll, do the opposite of hat a troll does. an intelligent conversation, with views backed by real world examples that others can view, not whatever assumptions you can come up with in your fantasy world of a mind...
but if not, you are a troll
OP, needs to come up with a valid response not something he thinks we want to hear. A valid discussion, not going back and forth saying who is better then someone else.


reply to post by dawnstar
 

And Dawnstar, I'm a writer. I notice mistakes very easily, that's why I correct OP, because ruddy spelling annoys the # out of me.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I grew up with a June Cleaver mother and enjoyed her being home. We weren't rich but had enough to be comfortable. If it wasn't for my brothers she would have likely molded me into a clone with her propaganda and lectures on the proper dress and decorum for young ladies.

I rough housed, climbed trees, camped, fished, hunted and worked on cars and farm equipment. I could sling hay, except for clover, up into the barn and enjoyed the outdoors. Sure, I learned some things, albeit under duress, that have stuck like canning, cooking and sewing but I preferred scaling fish, skinning squirrels and butchering deer and hogs. I didn't mind coming home filthy and just stripped off to underwear in the mud room with my brothers.

I worked, had children and June Cleaver was always there to babysit the grand kids.

As much as I loved having mother at home all the time that kind of role was defiantly not for me.

edit on 9/8/2011 by Bramble Iceshimmer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


OK, heart,

No need to get mad.

Obviously if you are a single female, go out there and get a job.


I'm not mad sweetheart, you need to wake up and smell that delicious espresso cooking.
People get tired of being poor, female, male, other. they get up off their bums and get a job.


Right on Heart!. I am actually surprised to see some one suggesting that a woman should not work unless she is single. What year is it again?


2011, I don't know what era Elisabeth Darcy stepped out of


Yeah, I even double checked my calender. It is 2011 for sure....

All I can say to some of the people in here....Women have rights to. They can work and should work if that is what they want to do.... If you can't handle it...Try moving to a country that is not free... See if you like it there better.

^ wow, never thought I would have to point out that women have the same rights as men.....



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by EmilNomel

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


that is the question... isn't it?

most of the answer is in the original post...
i would only add this: perhaps more slaves working for the elite?

That is the whole question, where do they come in at ?


the rockefellers came in at the beginnin of the 1st and 2nd feminist movement... but, they didn't just come in to the movement with donations of millions of dollars as a support for the movement they spend billions of money to start the movement all over the globe... they sponsored it all! ...the question is WHY?
they also sponsored vladimir ilyich lenin and the russian revolution... but, WHY?
what did they have to gain by spending billions for the feminist movement and the russian revolution???
there must have been a very good reason for that... that's all i'm saying at the moment



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
All I can say to some of the people in here....Women have rights to. They can work and should work if that is what they want to do.... If you can't handle it...Try moving to a country that is not free... See if you like it there better.

^ wow, never thought I would have to point out that women have the same rights as men.....

i and perhaps most of us agree with you! but...
although all of this is true, women should also be able to stay at home, raise their children, be housewives, etc... if that's what they choose to do... and in today's economy that is impossible!!

being a full time mother is a 24 hours a day 7 days a week job that gives you no paycheck! who wants to do it these days?? many women do... but, they cannot afford it! and WHY they cannot afford it???

thank you.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
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.


So very, very well-said.

True intimacy requires true vulnerability. Nothing less will do.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
Women's lib wrecked everything.

Because women and men have different purposes in life.

Let us keep these clear.

The reason why so many are out of jobs is because women took them. And because some families have two jobs.

Come on, women, get back home! Your job is to nurture etc - not to earn.

And let every family have one job.

Okay, waiting for the hate - but you know I am right.



LOL the trolls are getting younger and younger!!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


You are such a pain in the arse!

Let men and women do their different roles.

I'm being smart, you want to prove your bloody point ? I'm asking questions, no reason for you to get offended. I might be a pain in your arse but what about the single mum's who need work. Are they supposed to get married to support their kids too ?
These are vital questions that you should've thought about before you made this thread.

I hope you're trolling.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)


Those single mums should put up and shut up and serve the men that gifted them with a child!
/end sarcasm



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
Women's lib wrecked everything.


The war cry of the un-empowered man.

[sarcasm]
Yes, I'm afraid women are no longer going to be under the thumb of man... Those were the good old days, huh? When women were so controllable and easy to oppress. When we stayed home and watched soaps and cleaned up after you... When we were treated like a possession of man's. Alas, those days are gone and now men can sit back and blame women and cry and whine because they aren't able to get a job because women are qualified and intelligent and emancipated. Yes, we have taken away all the jobs...
Poor little defenseless men...
[/sarcasm]



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 


So how exactly does a woman with a quadriplegic husband and a son in university support her family? Welfare?
Charity?
Or perhaps bigamy is the answer? I look forward to hearing your suggestions as you seem to have all the answers.

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

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



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I can't wait for a women president, so when she's just as bad as all the others we can point and say "See, no better"

But I am sure people will make excuses as to why she couldn't get X done, like male dominated congress or something.

Men and Women are not better or worst than one another, just different, and our differences should be embraced not acted like they don't exist.

Women see more colors than men, Men sense motion better.

One makes women better at certain task, one makes men better at others, different is not inferior.
edit on 8-9-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 


You said: "The reason why so many are out of jobs is because women took them. And because some families have two jobs."

I don't agree. I think (many people) are out of work because of the increase in technology....(the computers, machines etc.) are now doing the jobs that people used to do. Also...many are out of work...because a lot of this work is (sent out to other countries) and also many Illegal immigrants are hired to work for very low wages...under the table.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
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.


Most balanced response. S&F


There are no black and white answers to a grey issue. I've been both a stay at home mom and a full time working mom, so I see both sides of the issue from a woman's perspective. I like that as a widow I can go out and support my children without resorting to finding a man to 'support' us, or relying on charity. However, as anyone who has children and actually cares about said children knows, it's painful to be in a position that you are sending your baby off to be raised by an institution versus yourself because you cannot afford to do otherwise.

What really baffled me when my children were young was the amount of disdain I received from people for choosing to stay home with my two young daughters, a choice both my husband and I agreed on as I was a firm believer I did not have them to let strangers raise them, as was he. People would pity him like I was a gold digger or pity me that I was so weak that I needed a man to support me.

There is something very wrong with that, when society now deems a woman weak for wanting to be a stay at home mother and a man whipped, being 'taken for a ride' versus recognizing that the couple in question agreed as a team this is the route for them personally with regards to parenting and their family unit. Seems to me the issue isn't women working at all but what Bluesma pointed out so aptly, quoted above, lack of appreciation for the integral role we all play, together in a functioning society.

I sometimes wish I had a strong man to lean on when times are hard and to work towards a future together as a unit but then I'm also very thankful I live in a time when I can provide for my own children without having to resort to an unhappy marriage/relationship or charity for that very support, as that would be far more damaging to my children than mom being a working parent. All things in life can be a double edged sword, but I'd rather have a sword that is pointing away from me, firmly in my own hand then one pointed at my throat any day.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join