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.

 

Fox News: "Liberals who reject that men should dominate women are anti-science."

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I agree that there are differences between the sexes, but it is not about submission. It is a partnership for survival. Digit 0 is suited for its purpose and digit 1 is suited for its purpose. But there would be no world without both. Christian men are so afraid to let go of what they think they have a control over.




posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Well, technically that is the way that we evolved, like most other species. But just because something is natural doesn't make it right. That would be a logical fallacy known as an appeal to nature.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 



Also, these mens psychological health is fuffering, because most men feel they should be the primary bread winners, while women should be the primary nurturers of their children.


Do you have any evidence to support that claim? I'm a man I do not think genders have any defined roles, at least when it comes to human beings.


This was a very good point I thought, as it is a fact women are better equiped for the most part, to be the emotional nurturers of young children, it is natural, look at any mammal on earth, this is not debatable, it is a fact, women are better nurturers for the most part.


A women who conceives a child can put that child up for adoption and that child could be adopted by a single male and raised perfectly fine, the fact that we can do that invalidates the idea of "traditional"gender roles. Anything we do is natural, so the fact that a single man can raise a child means that all humans are naturally capable of raising children.


Not to say men can not fulfill this role, some do a very good job, but as a whole, it is not the rule, and only PC nazis would try to claim so.


Again what do you have to back up this claim? Historically speaking "groups" of people raised children more so than one or two individuals so that being said it is hard if not impossible to determine which gender is "better" at it. In the end it all comes down to the individual not their gender.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
My wife made more, then I made more, then she made more....and so on.
The only real problem I can see is related to Ego.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


And the females still raise the children, because they are the sex naturally equiped to do so.

PC people can claim men and women aren't different, and don't serve different roles in society at large, but they are being very disingenuos.

Women are a lot different than men, in many ways, not just physical proportions, or sex organs, but psychologically as well.

Women are much better equiped by nature to properly raise children than men. Does this mean all women are better mothers than any man can be, of course not, does it mean a man can't raise a child successfully, of course not, it means that out of every thousand women, most will be better mothers, than most of a thousand men at raising children, and nurturing them.

Sorry if it doesn't fit into your PC book, but I couldn't care, I am not now, nor will I ever, let what people want to hear dictate, what I say and do.

There is vastly more scientific and historical evidence to prove women are better at raising kids than men, and thusprobably should take the primary role in doing so. As long as raising the best child they can is their priority in life, if being a success in the business world is more important to them than that, there is nothing stopping them, they are aloud to make thesechoices for themselves, it isn't like I am proposing or supporting a law requiring it, I am just stating what is and has always been and fact in the human world.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


If you really want to go there, I'd argue that right and wrong are nonexistent and that we have fabricated what is permissible. Natural selection, then, does not have to be "right" in the contemporary, cultural sense of the word, but it definitely is "right" in accomplishing its purpose - ensuring a species remain extant.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


So, then, I assume you'll accept these examples:
Baboons
Hyenas
Lemurs
Binobos
Elephants

edit on 30-5-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


I think your grasping at straws, yes yes, one can always find an exception, you could have just named a few men have raised children quite well without a mother.

That does not change the fact though, women overall for the most part, give the best care to children.

Yes men can do it, and in some cases can do it better than the mother, and even without one, but this is not the vast majority of cases, these are all exceptions.

As in one out of hundreds or more likely thousands.

Can it happen, absolutely, does it happen most of the time, absolutely not.

Do you not see the difference here?

Just because 1 guy wins the lottery, does not mean most people can win the lottery, or even ever will do so at any point.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 



it means that out of every thousand women, most will be better mothers, than most of a thousand men at raising children, and nurturing them.

but neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell women or men how to live their life. have you ever considered it a societal issue rather than a nature issue?

this is circular reasoning, women are told "be a good wife, cook, clean, and mind the kids" then you cry "eureka! women ARE more suited to the task" simply because that is the position that they were raised to fulfill.

americans claim they have freedom, but then bash anyone who wants to use their freedom to be "different".



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 





I think your grasping at straws, yes yes, one can always find an exception, you could have just named a few men have raised children quite well without a mother.
I gave you five examples, just off the top of my head. Not really grasping at straws.




That does not change the fact though, women overall for the most part, give the best care to children.
And? Does that make it "anti-science" when that is not the case?




Yes men can do it, and in some cases can do it better than the mother, and even without one, but this is not the vast majority of cases, these are all exceptions.
Now YOU are grasping at straws. To defend the notion that something that happens quite a bit in nature is "anti-science" is just silly.




As in one out of hundreds or more likely thousands.
Are those scientific numbers?





Can it happen, absolutely, does it happen most of the time, absolutely not.
This is an oxymoronic statement. Something cannot happen, but also most of the time absolutely not. If it can happen, there is no 'absolute'.




Do you not see the difference here?
I see that it is in the minority. Do you not see that that in no way makes it 'anti-scientific'?




Just because 1 guy wins the lottery, does not mean most people can win the lottery, or even ever will do so at any point.
Thats simply false. Anyone that buys a ticket *can* win the lottery, its just that most wont.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Yet you have failed to even provide evidence that what your claiming is even true.


Yes men can do it, and in some cases can do it better than the mother, and even without one, but this is not the vast majority of cases, these are all exceptions.

As in one out of hundreds or more likely thousands.


Where did you get those statistics? Or are you just making up convenient sounding numbers?

Single father households seem to have the same success rate as single mother households, the only difference being that their are more single mothers than single fathers. Other than that difference the pros and cons of being a single parent are the same despite gender.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


So human genders don't have defined roles you say?

So then men get pregnant and carry children?

I suppose they make milk to feed these children they carry also?

I believe it is quite obvious there is a large difference, and that there are several roles each is better suited to play than the other, thus both contributing to the whole in their own ways.

Many of you seem to think I am implying women should be barefoot and chained to a bed with just enough slack to reach the sink and stove.

This is not even close to my belief, I have a dishwasher and can cook for myself.....
lol

Serously though, women are more emotional, and better at child nurturing than men, this is a known physiological difference between the 2 sexs.

As far the men suffering psychologically because their woman outperforms them in the pay department, there have been multiple studies done on that subject, most never get much face time because it isn't very PC.

I have not seen any historical evidence of children being raised by groups instead of parents, could you point some out that are isolated instances, or small remote tribal groups?

Because in all of recorded human history it has been a mother and father raising their children for the most part, yes the village all contributed and worked together, but not in the sense of everyone rasing children like a giant group, community orphanage( did I spell that right?).



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


See your doing the PC nazi thing, right here in your posts, your assuming that because I would say women are better at raising kids, means I am saying they have to, and don't have a choice.

I have repeatedly said they do have the choice, and that I do not think they should have to.

Just because I say it is a fact that women are better at raising kids than men, doesn't mean I think they have to be house slaves etc.....

It just means I am saying it is a fact that they are better at doing so, anything outside that came from your own prejudice, and is found in your psychological view of the subject, nothing more.

I can say woman are better at child nuruturing without saying any of those other things your wanting have me say, I didn't say any of them, I didn't imply any of them, I don't believe most of them, and would not force any of them on women.

Women are people to, they get to decide for themselves their course in this world.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 

You must be intellectually inept, if you believe I am going to give you evidence to what is common sense and everyday info.

Most households in America are 2 parent homes, this is a widely known everyday fact, like water is wet, and the sky is up, and the moon controls the tides.

I am not going to play the game where I must provide scientific studies to prvoe common knowledge.

What proofs have you provided?

Oh that's right, NONE, so please stop, I am no idiot and will not play your one sided game where you think you get to make the rules, and demand anything of me, we play a game with equal rules where we both do or don't provide evidence, but not only one of us.

Nor will I provide any evidence ever of common knowledge, this is an idiots game.

I mean where did you grow up, and where do you live now?

Are you really going to try to say most famiies are not a mom and dad with kids, and that the father is not the primary bread winner?

If you do your being very dishonest, because that is and has been the societal norm of this entire country since before it was a country, as is still the norm to this very moment.

So can we please just get back on topic here, and have an actual intelligent discussion about the subject matter, instead of trying to bepetty and make assumptions, and try to honestly deny known common knowledge that is commonly known as fact.?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 




So human genders don't have defined roles you say?

So then men get pregnant and carry children?

I suppose they make milk to feed these children they carry also?


I was not talking about biological differences, I was talking about the defined social gender roles, which again do not truly exist.


Serously though, women are more emotional,


Sure this is a known psychological phenomenon


and better at child nurturing than men


but this is conjecture


I have not seen any historical evidence of children being raised by groups instead of parents, could you point some out that are isolated instances, or small remote tribal groups?


When I said groups I was referring to families. In the past families were more likely to live together (i.e. brothers, sister, cousins, grandparents, uncles, etc) and if they did not live together they lived in close proximity. The parents were indeed raising the child however to say they were the sole raisers of that child would not be accurate as the child is exposed to multiple different individuals on a constant basis who all teach and guide the child throughout their lives

A good modern example of this would be many households in Central and South America, in Africa, South East Asia, hell just about anywhere in the third world.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


See your doing the PC nazi thing, right here in your posts, your assuming that because I would say women are better at raising kids, means I am saying they have to, and don't have a choice.

I have repeatedly said they do have the choice, and that I do not think they should have to.

Just because I say it is a fact that women are better at raising kids than men, doesn't mean I think they have to be house slaves etc.....

It just means I am saying it is a fact that they are better at doing so, anything outside that came from your own prejudice, and is found in your psychological view of the subject, nothing more.

I can say woman are better at child nuruturing without saying any of those other things your wanting have me say, I didn't say any of them, I didn't imply any of them, I don't believe most of them, and would not force any of them on women.

Women are people to, they get to decide for themselves their course in this world.

i'm not sure how you would interpret my responses as "PC" when the talking heads of faux news think that women making more money than men is "wrong". i'm for whatever is true, and i'm not foolish enough to claim that there are no differences between the sexes.

are women better at raising kids than men? personally i believe it takes two working equally to raise a child correctly.

i'm unsure how you can claim that women are better than men at raising kids as an undisputed fact. what do you define "better" as?

please don't take my posts as attacks, im attempting to understand your point of view, specifically what you would consider "better" to be, and why you think it is bound to the nature of one sex over the other.

i can also see how frustrating it would be to always be told "you're better suited to being a say at home mom". i'm not claiming that you have made that statement, but it is often made to women or for women (originating from others) and few things are more annoying than another telling you what you should be good at as a way to shirk responsibility.

you seem moderately intelligent and don't quickly resort to angry arguments from what i've seen, so i look forward to getting some intellectual stimulation from this continued discussion.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The problem is not that women are working. The problem is that FAR to many children are being raised in households where BOTH parents work.

More and more we rely on the government and corporations (child car facilities) to raise our children for us. And then when they turn out bad we blame everyone else. Fact is a child needs at least one parent at home with it. It needs to be shown how to grow as a person, form relationships, and how to act in society.

I, and no one else, should care if Mom or Dad is at home, but one of them should be. 2 income households have done nothing but drive up the cost of things and drive up inflation. It's up to each family to make this decision. BUT when mom and dad are both working 40+ hours weeks, the child suffers for it.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   


Fox News: "Liberals who reject that men should dominate women are anti-science.",





It seems to me that the GOP, by using the Fox network as their primary mouth piece; Is once again handing the democrats future elections.

Without the women's and minorities votes, the GOP has made itself obsolete.


edit on 30-5-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 



You must be intellectually inept,


Why the ad hominem!? I just wanted you to quantify your statements by providing some sort of research. Specifically concerning that "women are better at raising children than men" and that the majority of single fathers are not as successful as single mothers. That's all I wanted to know because without it is is simply conjecture/opinion.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Read the entire thread. Many good points from various perspectives, so my comments are addressed generally - NOT specifically to the OP.

One of the posters said something about Christian men not wanting to give up control (paraphrase). What struck me from the OP was how the views reportedly expressed by Dobbs & company (bastion of far right conservativism) seemed harmoniously aligned with islamic/muslim/sharia attitudes about women, so the reference to Christianity leads me to the inevitable conclusion that ALL of the Abrahamic religions have shared values with regards to subjugation of / superiority of men over women.

Another poster referred to the female capacity for nurturing being superior to the male. In MAMMALS, it seems the claim is irrefutable given the intimate bonding between mother and child during the feeding process. After infancy - environmental, situational, and emotional influences determine who (male or female) might provide the most successful child rearing (in any given circumstance).

The postulate that rejecting the subjugation of women is anti-science is a total double face palm as far as I'm concerned. While I will grant that females are NATURALLY more SUITED to child rearing and perhaps home-making. I will grant that males are PHYSICALLY superior being more powerful, and thus are well-suited to DOMINATE. It would seem somewhat hind-brained to intellectually justify the domination of women on this basis (imn2no).

I will close with my favorite quote: "We all have delusions - choose your carefully!"

ganjoa
edit on 30-5-2013 by ganjoa because: speleing

edit on 30-5-2013 by ganjoa because: dropped a line



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I think the guys in the video from the OP either misspoke, or, most likely, are idiots. Most on TV these days are idiots.

For the record I think women should stay in the home, they shouldn't be forced to. But if I woke up tomorrow and my wife got a job making what I make or more and asked me to stay at home with our son... I would break my legs in the rush to go tell my boss goodbye.

I think anyone who truly wants to work 40hrs a week for the rest of their life is an idiot. At least being at home cleaning, cooking, and raising my son would make a difference in the world that I could see... My 2 cents.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join