Feminism & The Downfall Of The Traditional Family

reply to post by Cuervo


All good hermano. I'm glad you allowed me to clarify my position instead of attacking. (star to you for having a civilized conversation).

Originally posted by Whosthatgirl
reply to post by ushouldntcare

 

Are you his wife? Hehe.

No, I am not his wife. "HEHE"


I am simply some one who read something I liked, and disliked what others had to say. I thought I would give my opinion on the matter.

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by Jepic

 

I agree, but my point is the man should not let the woman walk all over him. He should move on until he finds a woman that finds joy in respecting and supporting a man. A woman that is OK with having a traditional marriage.

The only thing thing that might bring us back to traditional family values is if the men stand up, go to work, provide for their families, and let their wives know that they won't be controlled. My husband tries to tell his friends this all the time, but they'd rather sit around and complain.

I agree completely and let me tell you it's a struggle. There is more chances of dying miserable and alone before finding the woman you ever wanted. Especially in today's climate.

That is why a lot of men are getting fed up and say screw it why should I be miserable while most people out there are having the time of their lifes? And that's how a good guy turns into a bad boy and the cycle continues.

reply to post by Jepic


That's why so many Western men are looking to other countries to find wives. Believe it or not there's actually a whole movement dedicated to boycotting American women. I don't know about the UK.

I don't believe that's the way to go. You have to remember that most women were raised to think the way they do. You'll find someone. You just need to make it clear that you value tradition and are conservative when it comes to relationships. That should weed out anyone that isn't what you would consider wife material.

reply to post by Cuervo

As I keep saying, people are the issue. It boils down to selfishness. Women are perceived to have a more substantial role in relationships now and it's not being accepted very well by many men. Would you rather have men advance and grow up or would you have women revert and take a step backwards?

More substantial role? So taking care of children isn't an important role?

We already had bread winners. We need nurturers.

I stay home, ensure that my children are taken care of, cook nutritional meals that my entire family benefits from and keep a clean comfortable environment for them to grow in. Is that a step backwards?

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by Cuervo

 

As I keep saying, people are the issue. It boils down to selfishness. Women are perceived to have a more substantial role in relationships now and it's not being accepted very well by many men. Would you rather have men advance and grow up or would you have women revert and take a step backwards?

More substantial role? So taking care of children isn't an important role?

We already had bread winners. We need nurturers.

I stay home, ensure that my children are taken care of, cook nutritional meals that my entire family benefits from and keep a clean comfortable environment for them to grow in. Is that a step backwards?

I think we are talking about two completely different opinions on what "role" means. Yes, there needs to be nurturing and providing in every family. Whatever combination that is used to achieve this sufficiently is cool in my book.

I have the utmost respect for women who decide to stay at home and nurture the family because it's their passion but I have little respect for the woman who does it because she thinks it's her "role" or "duty".

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by Cuervo

 

As I keep saying, people are the issue. It boils down to selfishness. Women are perceived to have a more substantial role in relationships now and it's not being accepted very well by many men. Would you rather have men advance and grow up or would you have women revert and take a step backwards?

More substantial role? So taking care of children isn't an important role?

We already had bread winners. We need nurturers.

I stay home, ensure that my children are taken care of, cook nutritional meals that my entire family benefits from and keep a clean comfortable environment for them to grow in. Is that a step backwards?

I think we are talking about two completely different opinions on what "role" means. Yes, there needs to be nurturing and providing in every family. Whatever combination that is used to achieve this sufficiently is cool in my book.

I have the utmost respect for women who decide to stay at home and nurture the family because it's their passion but I have little respect for the woman who does it because she thinks it's her "role" or "duty".

Nurture has always been the role of a woman. Since the cave days. It's only recently that it has changed and thus we are having this problem where women try to fill a man's shoe.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by Cuervo

 

As I keep saying, people are the issue. It boils down to selfishness. Women are perceived to have a more substantial role in relationships now and it's not being accepted very well by many men. Would you rather have men advance and grow up or would you have women revert and take a step backwards?

More substantial role? So taking care of children isn't an important role?

We already had bread winners. We need nurturers.

I stay home, ensure that my children are taken care of, cook nutritional meals that my entire family benefits from and keep a clean comfortable environment for them to grow in. Is that a step backwards?

I think we are talking about two completely different opinions on what "role" means. Yes, there needs to be nurturing and providing in every family. Whatever combination that is used to achieve this sufficiently is cool in my book.

I have the utmost respect for women who decide to stay at home and nurture the family because it's their passion but I have little respect for the woman who does it because she thinks it's her "role" or "duty".

I guess a woman shouldn't have children then if they don't believe it is thier "role" or "duty" to take care of them. I thought women were the major contributor in the lives of children.

I don't know Cuervo...
Maybe it's my culture that creates the difference in thoughts of how things should be....
But how I was raised, what my Father says goes. He was the bread winner. And also, eventually too my mother worked but she was a Mother FIRST. But also we (my siblings and I) hold our Mother to a very high standard.
Unlike your typical Americans, we wouldn't dare think about throwing our parents in a nursing home when they are older. We would wipe thier arses and change thier diapers just like they did for us. Family first.
Familia esta primero.

reply to post by Cuervo

Yes, there needs to be nurturing and providing in every family. Whatever combination that is used to achieve this sufficiently is cool in my book.

I think this thread was mainly about the fact that there is not enough nurturing in many families today. Divorce is at an all time high. kids are left alone all day. Parents are too tired to give them attention.

I have the utmost respect for women who decide to stay at home and nurture the family because it's their passion but I have little respect for the woman who does it because she thinks it's her "role" or "duty".

What's wrong with feeling you have a duty to your family AND enjoying it because it benefits them? I don't hear anyone say that they don't respect men who go to work and support their families because it's their duty. In fact it's the exact opposite.

I realize that many families cannot survive on one income, but it hasn't always been that way. That can be attributed to many different factors, but I think one is the fact that the workforce is now flooded with both men and women.

Right on. The more people in the workforce the lower the salary for each person because the money will have to be shared among more people.

If let's say more women focused to stay at home to nurture the family, the salary would go up for men and conditions would improve because there is now less people who have to get paid. A bigger share is now given to the man and thus the family becomes wealthier.

Originally posted by Jepic
Right on. The more people in the workforce the lower the salary for each person because the money will have to be shared among more people.

If let's say more women focused to stay at home to nurture the family, the salary would go up for men and conditions would improve because there is now less people who have to get paid. A bigger share is now given to the man and thus the family becomes wealthier.

Right!
And then because the Mother stays at home to nurture the children, the children are raised better. Rather than throwing them in a day care they have thier Mother there to teach them right from wrong.
I think future generations would greatly benefit from this.
There are just some things in life you can only learn from your parents......

My hat is off to you Ireminisce

reply to post by resoe26


Not to mention, fewer teen girls having babies, which would cause the number of people on welfare to go down. There would be fewer teens on drugs and fewer people in prison, so the tax payers would be winning all the way around. Just like it used to be.

Right on. The more people in the workforce the lower the salary for each person because the money will have to be shared among more people.

reply to post by Jepic


Right. Plus the companies don't have to worry about offering competitive pay, because there are more people than jobs.

Originally posted by Ireminisce

Right on. The more people in the workforce the lower the salary for each person because the money will have to be shared among more people.

reply to post by Jepic

 

Right. Plus the companies don't have to worry about offering competitive pay, because there are more people than jobs.

Sounds right.

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by Cuervo

 

As I keep saying, people are the issue. It boils down to selfishness. Women are perceived to have a more substantial role in relationships now and it's not being accepted very well by many men. Would you rather have men advance and grow up or would you have women revert and take a step backwards?

More substantial role? So taking care of children isn't an important role?

We already had bread winners. We need nurturers.

I stay home, ensure that my children are taken care of, cook nutritional meals that my entire family benefits from and keep a clean comfortable environment for them to grow in. Is that a step backwards?

I think we are talking about two completely different opinions on what "role" means. Yes, there needs to be nurturing and providing in every family. Whatever combination that is used to achieve this sufficiently is cool in my book.

I have the utmost respect for women who decide to stay at home and nurture the family because it's their passion but I have little respect for the woman who does it because she thinks it's her "role" or "duty".

Nurture has always been the role of a woman. Since the cave days. It's only recently that it has changed and thus we are having this problem where women try to fill a man's shoe.

First of all, this is not true of every culture in history. Second of all, do you really want to model our society on what cavemen used to do in the paleolithic era? Is that our template for family structure?

reply to post by Cuervo


It worked for the cave men didn't it? I mean, our species has survived up to this point.

Almost every society continued living this way, and it was fine. You really don't think that the drug use, teen pregnancies, welfare issues, divorce rate, and over all lack of morality in our culture has anything at all to do with so many women taking on the extra responsibility of joining the work force?

Is that our template for family structure?

Have you ever considered that maybe our family structure is natural, and it shouldn't be tampered with? Why fix something that's not broken?

Got to go. I'll check back later.

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by Cuervo

 

It worked for the cave men didn't it? I mean, our species has survived up to this point.

Almost every society continued living this way, and it was fine. You really don't think that the drug use, teen pregnancies, welfare issues, divorce rate, and over all lack of morality in our culture has anything at all to do with so many women taking on the extra responsibility of joining the work force?

Slavery worked phenomenally, as well. The Egyptian economy flourished and they built amazing structures that people to this day debate whether or not they were built by extraterrestrials. It worked so well that people decided to hold on the twisted logic of slavery well into the founding of the United States of America... the "land of the free". Traditionally, women could not vote. That worked out amazingly for the men who were in power. People survived and the nation flourished. When women began to vote, there were several divorces then, as well. Is that the fault of feminism?

As I said before, tradition does not excuse immoral behavior. If there were no societal evolution, we would still be clubbing women on the head to claim a baby-mama.

Women are NOT forced to because nurtures and take care of the house and family stuff, its because they are designed that way.

Children run to their mother when they are hurt, rather than the father, because "mother knows".

How many species(in a non polygamy structure) where you see the male guard the nest while female goes out and battles for territory and find food.

Most of the time women always marry up, and men always marry down, our current "equal" (lol) right society made it that way.

Some women, usually women in their 15-35(not all), have a mind set on how a husband should be, money makers, doctors, everything except the person who leads the family. The women now a days set standard high, that most men think that they NEED this to get a women.


Its the era of trophy husbands!

My only strategy i have in this is to get much education as possible(looking to do MSc atm).. so they come after me and not me after them.. this way ill weed out the bad ones.

Talking about double standards.

I saw a social experimentation test on youtube.

Setting was at a park, where a couple was arguing(they are actors of course).

First test, the guy was action aggressive toward the girl and slapping the face and pushing her. People were disgusted and called the police.

Second Test, the roles were reversed, female is the aggressor, she was slapping, pulling hair pulling on the shirt, yelling, guess what happen? people just walked by, some even cheer for her. When the people were question after they said "he must have deserved it" or "she didn't look too dangerous" "it was harmless".

____

Even now, Canadian law is highly biased toward women. Pretty much, if you are divorced, men pays you no matter what, even if the women cheated etc etc.

Even on a pregnancy result, men lose out.

If they don't want the kid, the women can have the kid and ruin his life, shouldn't the guy be void of responsibility if the women decided to have the child on her own? why bother bringing a child into the world if the "parents" are not ready(esp teenagers).. all it is just a huge sink into the governments bank.
If men want the kid, and the women doesn't, then it is somewhat a lost for the guy.


.......

with feminist mind set(and some people who support that in this thread) about "equal"(yeah right) rights when all the men stay at home looking at kids while women go fight wars... will never happen and you know it.

Double standard alert!

reply to post by Cuervo

Slavery worked phenomenally, as well.

I wouldn't say that slavery worked for the slaves, so no it didn't really work. We realized that and changed it. Can't believe you're even comparing slavery. Really veering off topic there.

Traditionally, women could not vote.

You're right. They couldn't and I never said that women should not be able to vote.

When women began to vote, there were several divorces then, as well. Is that the fault of feminism?

The divorce rate was not nearly as high as it is today.

As I said before, tradition does not excuse immoral behavior.

Who is talking about immoral behavior? All I've been saying is that things seemed to work out better when kids were raised by two parents. The reason it worked better was because each parent had their own job. The father went to work to provide financially, and the mother nurtured her children and taught them right from wrong.

OK, my bottom line: I feel that society is more productive with a worker and a nurturer. I feel we wouldn't have as many problems today if more mothers with young children stayed home and took care of them, at least until school aged, while their husbands went into the work force. I believe divorce rates, teen pregnancies, and drug use would decline. I also believe we'd have higher paying jobs to be filled.

I have no problem with women who work. I am not saying it should be illegal. What I am saying is that something is obviously wrong with our society and the problems we have today did not get this out of control until the traditional family fell apart. There is no denying that.

I'd also like to point out that I have answered all of your questions and you have answered none of mine.