Originally posted by Gradius Maximus

I would not want or expect my wife to chase down a deer with a spear and stab the life from it during its death throws while she is carrying my child, be safe instead.


-GM

Why not?

Women settled the wild west while pregnant. Women had babies in the fields. As long as there are not complications in the pregnancy.
you know how many women fought off British soldiers and kept estates running while husbands are gone? With children clinging to their skirts or pregnant?

Now what if something happened to you? What is she supposed to do then?

The bickering of males and females in this thread, are parallel with the bickering of husband and wife. Both argue there self importance to the family, almost in competition to be the most needed. The fact of the matter is if I had been born a female I would have had experiences in my life that were strictly gender specific, I would act like a woman, I would be exposed to gender related circumstances.

However both of our roles are extremely important whatever that may be. Obviously stereo types only go so far, as we all know to qualify as a stereo type there is an ounce of truth. But individual nature of our consciousness will supersede our genders and almost always do. However there are some facts that are undeniable. Men seed women, women carry children.

Most women are more fragile than men; therefore men are expected to protect women at any cost. Sometimes as a man, especially to the mothers of some of my x girlfriends I have felt like an object, with the only material value to please a woman. In reality we are both needed and compromise is a fact in success not an opinion.

Unfortunately with the feminization of males with all of our hormones and chemicals.. women may win the west this time. I swear, boys these days Ive seen around the group of friends of my 18 yr old wear more eyeliner than I do. Ill kick his ass and make him cook for ME.

Seriously though.. ever seen a prison movie? Pecking orders arent by gender role alone. Those who follow the silly notion of gender roles and not the person reagrdless of genitalia best for each task by experience or physicality is doomed to die.. and I can get their stuff.

The poster up there is right.. pregnancy doesnt make you a fragile flower.. only in the modern soft programmed mind it does.

Originally posted by Advantage
Unfortunately with the feminization of males with all of our hormones and chemicals.. women may win the west this time. I swear, boys these days Ive seen around the group of friends of my 18 yr old wear more eyeliner than I do. Ill kick his ass and make him cook for ME.

Seriously though.. ever seen a prison movie? Pecking orders arent by gender role alone. Those who follow the silly notion of gender roles and not the person reagrdless of genitalia best for each task by experience or physicality is doomed to die.. and I can get their stuff.

The poster up there is right.. pregnancy doesnt make you a fragile flower.. only in the modern soft programmed mind it does.

actually women generally speaking are fragile in comparison to men. and soft programmed mind are you kidding me? have you been pregnant? have you motherd a child. By the sound of it no, women in pregnancy are a number of things, moody, chemically imbalanced, tired. There bellys are extremely fragile, even the hard shell exterior in the 3rd trimester is no match to blunt force trama that could easily harm the child.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus

I would not want or expect my wife to chase down a deer with a spear and stab the life from it during its death throws while she is carrying my child, be safe instead.


-GM

Why not?

Women settled the wild west while pregnant. Women had babies in the fields. As long as there are not complications in the pregnancy.
you know how many women fought off British soldiers and kept estates running while husbands are gone? With children clinging to their skirts or pregnant?

Now what if something happened to you? What is she supposed to do then?

edit on 31-10-2011 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

This is a prime example of the romanticization of the feminist movement.

To be honest this is what would happen to a woman with children if the man were to vanish, the children would probably die first, and the woman may or may not be able to provide for herself and the other children.

Men could live amongst themselves, and survive perfectly fine.

Women could live amongst themselves, and survive perfectly fine.

If it stayed this way, the human race would cease to exist.

When you add children to the equation, the woman is submitting to the provision of the man.

Its the unwritten law, it works, it doesnt make one superior gender to the other, it is what it is. We come together solely for the future of the species.

I was happiest when I was with my fellow man, 15 friends in a tight knit group of modern age "Hunters", we worked together, we lived together, we took care of eachother. Yet we are drawn to be with women almost as if we dont have a choice, we are drawn to the mystery of creation.

Now we have children, and we provide, because almost as if we dont have a choice, we are drawn to support the mystery of creation. We learn to love it, women learn to submit as the men learn to submit.

The gender war ends as soon as we get over ourselves,

-GM

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Why not?

Women settled the wild west while pregnant.

Actually, it varied quite a bit; but the "wild west" usually had between 4 males per female (i.e. Dodge City during the height of the "Chisolm Trail Cattle Drive" period) to more than 10 males per female (the Gold Rush). So, there were some prostitutes and school marms, but most of them were single.

That was part of the problem in Tombstone, when the business started at the OK Corral; the city "fathers" wanted a respectable town where women would want to live, instead of a collections of saloons and poker-halls for visiting cowboys.

Women had babies in the fields. As long as there are not complications in the pregnancy.

Worse than pregnancy complications (which caused a life expectancy for women on the frontier to plummet below age 40), was the incredible infant mortality rate, often higher than 50%... just look at little house on the prairie or the Lincoln family,

you know how many women fought off British soldiers and kept estates running while husbands are gone? With children clinging to their skirts or pregnant?

Practically none. The British occupied much of the north, (New York, Boston) for the duration of the Revolutionary war. The real resistance was in the south, where the British were fighting against the Green Mountain Boys and other guerillas while only a couple of Continental armies took the field.