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.
Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
care's=cares......
you're doing it on purpose???
Originally posted by Heartisblack
The Rockerfellers ? Now I'm going to play the stupid role, what the hell do they have to with this ?
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?
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.
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
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
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 ?
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.....
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.
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.
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)
Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
Women's lib wrecked everything.
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.