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.
ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch
page: 6share:
At the core of this topic, aside from the economy angle, is women's rights. Put the woman back in the home and we end up with a society where women
are beholden to men, for their food, the roof over their heads, for money, for their care...
What happens when a woman cannot or will not marry? If you're really, seriously saying that women in the workforce become the exception and not the rule, do you think that the education and opportunities will remain for the ones that must or want to work?
As someone said earlier, it wasn't that long ago that because of similar conditions, women who fell on hard times, had been abandoned or had her husband die, or who never married, even moreso if she had children, were left with nearly no options for support, and lived lives of poverty.
Women owning their own property was the exception not the rule, until 1900. If you were married, it was your husband's. And forget about having any claim to monies. As recent as the late 1800s, married women had about as many rights as slaves.
Imagine, you're 22, you have three kids. Your husband runs off. You didn't get much education beyond high school, why should you have? You have no work skills. And even if you did, with the social norm asking for women to remain out of the workforce and stay in the home, what jobs would there be for a woman? So what do you do? Marry again, as quick as possible, to anyone? Rely on your father to support you? Take a job, any job, scrubbing floors, or cleaning homes? Don't you see the pitfalls of such a system? And this scenerio was all too true, not that many years ago.
I don't have a single problem with women who wish to stay at home, raise children, care for the home. But it's another thing to say, "Hey, women shouldn't work outside the home". Because you cannot guarantee me, or other women, that the freedoms we have now would remain.
What happens when a woman cannot or will not marry? If you're really, seriously saying that women in the workforce become the exception and not the rule, do you think that the education and opportunities will remain for the ones that must or want to work?
As someone said earlier, it wasn't that long ago that because of similar conditions, women who fell on hard times, had been abandoned or had her husband die, or who never married, even moreso if she had children, were left with nearly no options for support, and lived lives of poverty.
Women owning their own property was the exception not the rule, until 1900. If you were married, it was your husband's. And forget about having any claim to monies. As recent as the late 1800s, married women had about as many rights as slaves.
Imagine, you're 22, you have three kids. Your husband runs off. You didn't get much education beyond high school, why should you have? You have no work skills. And even if you did, with the social norm asking for women to remain out of the workforce and stay in the home, what jobs would there be for a woman? So what do you do? Marry again, as quick as possible, to anyone? Rely on your father to support you? Take a job, any job, scrubbing floors, or cleaning homes? Don't you see the pitfalls of such a system? And this scenerio was all too true, not that many years ago.
I don't have a single problem with women who wish to stay at home, raise children, care for the home. But it's another thing to say, "Hey, women shouldn't work outside the home". Because you cannot guarantee me, or other women, that the freedoms we have now would remain.
To all the men on this forum who want to blame the current financial crisis on women, all I have to say is this: When you point a finger at someone,
notice that there is one finger pointing forward, and three fingers pointing back at yourself.
Men these days want to point fingers and blame everything going wrong in their lives on the women around them, but if they took one look at themselves, they might discover that they are actually the ones to blame.
As far as women being the ones to blame for the credit crisis? HA! I don't see any women in the news lately who have been singled out for perpetrating massive mortgage fraud, or stock-market fraud, or hedge-fund fraud. The people who are perpetrating all the fraud these days in the credit-finance sector seem to to all be men, and it is FRAUD (not spending) that seems to be at the center of our current credit crisis.
But hey, what do I know.... I'm just a woman.
[edit on 3-3-2009 by nikiano]
Men these days want to point fingers and blame everything going wrong in their lives on the women around them, but if they took one look at themselves, they might discover that they are actually the ones to blame.
As far as women being the ones to blame for the credit crisis? HA! I don't see any women in the news lately who have been singled out for perpetrating massive mortgage fraud, or stock-market fraud, or hedge-fund fraud. The people who are perpetrating all the fraud these days in the credit-finance sector seem to to all be men, and it is FRAUD (not spending) that seems to be at the center of our current credit crisis.
But hey, what do I know.... I'm just a woman.
[edit on 3-3-2009 by nikiano]
reply to post by Jadette
Notice from page 2 of this thread...my post to Rockpuck and also Whitewave.
In particular my post to Whitewave.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Jadette, do you know women who would be willing to work while the men stay home and are cared for in the manner that women traditionally were cared for??
I do know alot of these women today. Alot of them have spent much of thier lives living off the system and in the fast food lane and only marry ..again and again..when they sense the options are running out. Particularly the biology is running out and it is close to midnight Cinderella.
This means the options are running out.
How many of these women do you know Jadette? The interesting thing to me is that there appear to be no polls taken on this kind of trend though it is obviously all around us. THe sad thing is that the children often pay a high price for this conduct but the men get dogged for not doing enough about it.
By the way Jadette...do you know many men who have this option in todays social structure. To marry to a woman to take care of them when the options/biology runs out?? Is this acceptable social conduct for males to attach themselves to a woman as a good provider?? Do you know many women who are willing to to take on this role of marrying a man and his children? Mostly I see it is men doing this..not women. I am not saying that there are not women that do this but the numbers seem to be very one way on this. Why is this?? I know of only one woman who has done this. I know many young men who do this. Older ones too.
I dont see this discussed often in this type of topic line while denegrating marriage or men. Why is this? Could there be a stark contrast in thinking, beliefs, and values unspoken between males and females in this consumer oriented social structure??
Are there any polls on this..men marrying women with children verses the other way around?? I havent seen any..curious about this trend??
Thanks,
Orangetom
[edit on 3-3-2009 by orangetom1999]
So what do you do? Marry again, as quick as possible, to anyone?
Notice from page 2 of this thread...my post to Rockpuck and also Whitewave.
In particular my post to Whitewave.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Jadette, do you know women who would be willing to work while the men stay home and are cared for in the manner that women traditionally were cared for??
I do know alot of these women today. Alot of them have spent much of thier lives living off the system and in the fast food lane and only marry ..again and again..when they sense the options are running out. Particularly the biology is running out and it is close to midnight Cinderella.
This means the options are running out.
How many of these women do you know Jadette? The interesting thing to me is that there appear to be no polls taken on this kind of trend though it is obviously all around us. THe sad thing is that the children often pay a high price for this conduct but the men get dogged for not doing enough about it.
By the way Jadette...do you know many men who have this option in todays social structure. To marry to a woman to take care of them when the options/biology runs out?? Is this acceptable social conduct for males to attach themselves to a woman as a good provider?? Do you know many women who are willing to to take on this role of marrying a man and his children? Mostly I see it is men doing this..not women. I am not saying that there are not women that do this but the numbers seem to be very one way on this. Why is this?? I know of only one woman who has done this. I know many young men who do this. Older ones too.
I dont see this discussed often in this type of topic line while denegrating marriage or men. Why is this? Could there be a stark contrast in thinking, beliefs, and values unspoken between males and females in this consumer oriented social structure??
Are there any polls on this..men marrying women with children verses the other way around?? I havent seen any..curious about this trend??
Thanks,
Orangetom
[edit on 3-3-2009 by orangetom1999]
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by eventHorizon
Consumerism was the main drive for corporations, and
feminism served their purposes brilliantly.
Unfortunately, anything can be manipulated. And usually is.
FYI - Before "feminism," women were legally prevented from having jobs. So widows and their children, unmarried mothers and their children, the children of rapists, cads and various other walking dildos were condemned to poverty and slow starvation.
Do you really think it's fair to blame the victims? And create them?
.
Suffering is considered to be the main funtion which women are expected to suck up by these guys. While accusing women of selfishness, they are trying to create an atmosphere that would be bad for 50% of women and children.....because these guys are scared of not having a job. The other ones want to do it so that they can impose their religious beliefs into law, while saying that all the women and children who suffer are "God's" plan.
This feminist thinks all these guys can kiss my ass.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Byrd
I wouldn't say "wealthy", but you're very right in saying that poor women often worked low earning jobs. So did children before reforms..
But the mainstream Middle Class family, it was primarily the Male working full time, and the Female in the house/working part time etc, but not the main "bread winner" so to speak.
The trend that it was expected, in America, for women to work not stay home accelerated in the 50's, and by the 80's the "equality" movement had women making a good portion of their husbands salary.. enough anyways to cause inflation of product and real estate.
I think your views are rather extreme, almost ranting.. I don't think you are understanding my point..
The middle class is new. It is as much of a "historical blip" that these people claim female sovereignty to be.
reply to post by Jadette
As a woman I understand your fears. However I don't think anyone is suggesting that women not be allowed to work, this isn't about legislation to stop us from working or providing for our families. It's about a mind set that we as a society have. The mindset that devalues the work a woman does and is in fact biologically ingrained is us to be carers of our hearths.
When the hearth is not being tended it tends to get dirty and inefficent and no longer serves its purpose of being the centre of our homes, our famlies and our lives. The centre has now been replaced by shiny things, our purpose has become entwined with stuff.
That isn't the fault of women or feminisim. We all need to shoulder the blame.
I do not in anyway disparage a woman her choice to a career. It IS her right, a right to happiness and a right to freely choose for herself her path in life. It IS her duty to provide for her family, be it financially or in my opinion more importantly,maternally as a carer and nurturer of the home.
Earlier i said we are not equal to men, that we are different, therefore not equal. However I want to amend that by saying that a stay at home mom's job is just as important, equal in importancte to that of the breadwinner.
Breadwinner, breadmaker equally important.
As a woman I understand your fears. However I don't think anyone is suggesting that women not be allowed to work, this isn't about legislation to stop us from working or providing for our families. It's about a mind set that we as a society have. The mindset that devalues the work a woman does and is in fact biologically ingrained is us to be carers of our hearths.
When the hearth is not being tended it tends to get dirty and inefficent and no longer serves its purpose of being the centre of our homes, our famlies and our lives. The centre has now been replaced by shiny things, our purpose has become entwined with stuff.
That isn't the fault of women or feminisim. We all need to shoulder the blame.
I do not in anyway disparage a woman her choice to a career. It IS her right, a right to happiness and a right to freely choose for herself her path in life. It IS her duty to provide for her family, be it financially or in my opinion more importantly,maternally as a carer and nurturer of the home.
Earlier i said we are not equal to men, that we are different, therefore not equal. However I want to amend that by saying that a stay at home mom's job is just as important, equal in importancte to that of the breadwinner.
Breadwinner, breadmaker equally important.
Originally posted by Jadette
At the core of this topic, aside from the economy angle, is women's rights. Put the woman back in the home and we end up with a society where women are beholden to men, for their food, the roof over their heads, for money, for their care...
What happens when a woman cannot or will not marry? If you're really, seriously saying that women in the workforce become the exception and not the rule, do you think that the education and opportunities will remain for the ones that must or want to work?
As someone said earlier, it wasn't that long ago that because of similar conditions, women who fell on hard times, had been abandoned or had her husband die, or who never married, even moreso if she had children, were left with nearly no options for support, and lived lives of poverty.
Women owning their own property was the exception not the rule, until 1900. If you were married, it was your husband's. And forget about having any claim to monies. As recent as the late 1800s, married women had about as many rights as slaves.
Imagine, you're 22, you have three kids. Your husband runs off. You didn't get much education beyond high school, why should you have? You have no work skills. And even if you did, with the social norm asking for women to remain out of the workforce and stay in the home, what jobs would there be for a woman? So what do you do? Marry again, as quick as possible, to anyone? Rely on your father to support you? Take a job, any job, scrubbing floors, or cleaning homes? Don't you see the pitfalls of such a system? And this scenerio was all too true, not that many years ago.
I don't have a single problem with women who wish to stay at home, raise children, care for the home. But it's another thing to say, "Hey, women shouldn't work outside the home". Because you cannot guarantee me, or other women, that the freedoms we have now would remain.
You got it. My grandmother was born with no vote. The farm that was hers by inheritance was sold by her husband against her will, because she didn't have rights to it. In the 80-90s men in the Western world were on TV talking about how it was a travesty that there was going to be laws to say that men could be charge with rape against their wives.....because it was a woman's DUTY to give it up so she could NEVER be raped by a husband. I am not old - I am in my thirties. Men in my culture, in my lifetime, telling me that if I marry that I no longer should legally be allowed to control my vagina.
Go back to a time, when men registered the births of their boys but not their girls.
When you didn't have money, and you got pregnant and you couldn't ever LEAVE because your husband didn't leave you enough money to even be able to get out of the house. Because looking after yourself, or having a break was "SELFISH." While at the same time, these guys often had mistresses on whom they spent money.
All I need to do to get all of this and more, is to give way to men. Because there is cultures all over the world that display the "care" and "compassion" men have for women and children. Because history is clear about the exalted and protected position of women - or at least they all SAY that. Actual evidence makes it pretty clear that at least half of the time it was anything but good.
I will NEVER EVER EVER accept this bs. NEVER. I will fight you with my last breath to keep my rights, and my ability to provide for me and my children. I will not willingly accept slavery and be given a predefined "role" so that those without the ability to adapt can not have to THINK.
[edit on 2009/3/3 by Aeons]
Originally posted by Rockpuck
THE ANSWER to all our problems is staring us in the face. It may even be quite literally staring at you, right now, across the breakfast table.
So put the paper down, stare back and ask yourself a selfless question.
Does the woman in your life really need a job?
it's so true... Women need to be at home with the kids.
But when I thread title... I thought the OP would be more about women running up more credit card debt then men...
Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by nikiano
By your posts I would say Humility and modesty are good traits to have for anyone.
Modesty as in, I should walk around in a burka and long sleeves?
Humility as in, I should not dare to mention my accomplishments when trying to make a point, when a man gets on and tries to blame the women in the world for the financial crisis, that was started by high-powered men perpetrating fraud? So, I should just, what, bow my head in subservience and let them get away with their blatant sexism?
This is what Nelson Mandela has to say about humility, and I tend to agree with him. If you can top Mandela, go for it:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
[edit on 3-3-2009 by nikiano]
Aeons,
Ive been waiting for a post reeking of victimization trying to pass itself off as intelligence. Or conversely Drama attempting to do the same.
Your post typically and in textbook totally disregards the manner in which men take risks for their women and children. Men have to suck up alot too in order to bring home the moneys for the womans discretionary spending on the family.
What you are doing is textbook of todays intelligentsia trying to pass itself off as excellence and the high moral ground. It is also divide and conquer...which translates ..textbook politics.
The struggle of the male or men matters not ..it can be taken for granted...not factored in ..expected..even entitled. We see this over and over in post after post now days on topics like this one.
Lots of people are scared of not having a job. Not just men. Your point here is useless but it is good drama.
As to what you call religious beliefs ..I agree...you are attempting by drama and emotions to impose your religious beliefs off as normal and acceptable. No problem. I am just wont to illustrate them for what they are. Religious beliefs.
Intelligence, logic, wisdom, sophism also have thier origins in religious beliefs and systems and can be followed back mellineums in history if you know where and whence to look.
Thanks,
Orangetom
Suffering is considered to be the main funtion which women are expected to suck up by these guys. While accusing women of selfishness, they are trying to create an atmosphere that would be bad for 50% of women and children.....because these guys are scared of not having a job. The other ones want to do it so that they can impose their religious beliefs into law, while saying that all the women and children who suffer are "God's" plan.
This feminist thinks all these guys can kiss my ass.
Ive been waiting for a post reeking of victimization trying to pass itself off as intelligence. Or conversely Drama attempting to do the same.
Your post typically and in textbook totally disregards the manner in which men take risks for their women and children. Men have to suck up alot too in order to bring home the moneys for the womans discretionary spending on the family.
What you are doing is textbook of todays intelligentsia trying to pass itself off as excellence and the high moral ground. It is also divide and conquer...which translates ..textbook politics.
The struggle of the male or men matters not ..it can be taken for granted...not factored in ..expected..even entitled. We see this over and over in post after post now days on topics like this one.
Lots of people are scared of not having a job. Not just men. Your point here is useless but it is good drama.
As to what you call religious beliefs ..I agree...you are attempting by drama and emotions to impose your religious beliefs off as normal and acceptable. No problem. I am just wont to illustrate them for what they are. Religious beliefs.
Intelligence, logic, wisdom, sophism also have thier origins in religious beliefs and systems and can be followed back mellineums in history if you know where and whence to look.
Thanks,
Orangetom
Then let me give you an argument you can understand.
A well led populace doesn't rebel.
Tens of thousands of years to get it right. And just getting you guys to outlaw beating your wives was a multi-thousands of year process.
Kiss my ass.
A well led populace doesn't rebel.
Tens of thousands of years to get it right. And just getting you guys to outlaw beating your wives was a multi-thousands of year process.
Kiss my ass.
Originally posted by nikiano
Originally posted by JohnnyR
reply to post by nikiano
WOW how many times can you say "I" in a couple paragraphs? Might want to take a look in the mirror next time you're primping your polished self to explain why you'll probably never find a man you just described. I one of those responsible ones you talk about, and I even stay home with my kids and love every second of it, own two bars blah blah blah.
Only thing you're missing, is it takes someone who isn't selfish to do all the things you're looking for in a man, and the only way you won't find the drug abusers, alcholics etc. (which by the way are pretty selfish people) is if you start acting and being the person you want to find....unselfish
Did you even understand what the OP and the article said, or did you just read the Headline and assume we wanted to hear your man hating rant?
And you have just proven my point about men.
If a man got onto ATS and and said he was waiting to get married and have a family until he could find a woman who was as accomplished and responsible as he was, he would be called smart. But when I do it, I'm called selfish.
Oh, but yes, I must be selfish. That's why I spend the majority of my free time doing independent research into helping people with mood disorders and practically give away my time and services to free. But I'm selfish. That's why I pay for homeless vets medicine out my own pocket when they can't pay for it themselves. But I'm selfish.
How dare I, a mere woman, turn down 3 marriage proposals, because I'm waiting to find a guy who would actually be responsible enough to take care of himself and a family?? If that makes me selfish, then I guess what "selfish" is, is smart.
You can't even begin to know who I am by my "rant", as you call it. But your response is typical of many men. If I can't find a responsible, accomplished, emotionally mature man, it must be MY fault....because I'm too selfish.
Men.
[edit on 3-3-2009 by nikiano]
Just for the record, this thread is not about your personal life or your own failure to meet a man. It is about Women causing the credit crunch!
reply to post by Merigold
Wow..Merigold...well said...well said!! And with an economy of words of which I am lacking.
Well done Merigold..well done!!
Thanks,
Orangetom
Earlier i said we are not equal to men, that we are different, therefore not equal. However I want to amend that by saying that a stay at home mom's job is just as important, equal in importancte to that of the breadwinner.
Breadwinner, breadmaker equally important.
Wow..Merigold...well said...well said!! And with an economy of words of which I am lacking.
Well done Merigold..well done!!
Thanks,
Orangetom
OrangeTom, I wasn't ignoring you earlier but avoiding the obvious bait.
The article seems to infer that women working outside the home is the cause of inflation. This is a patently false notion.
An increase in the supply of money is the cause of inflation. Social degredation in it's multitudinous forms may be a result of inflation but creating and/or sustaining a gender war will not remedy the problem.
As long as we are all pointing fingers at one another we will not have our eyes on the source of the problem-an increase in the supply of money.
SO was correct in his assessment of the current financial meltdown. The Gaussian copula method was the invention of a man, not a woman, btw.
The article seems to infer that women working outside the home is the cause of inflation. This is a patently false notion.
An increase in the supply of money is the cause of inflation. Social degredation in it's multitudinous forms may be a result of inflation but creating and/or sustaining a gender war will not remedy the problem.
As long as we are all pointing fingers at one another we will not have our eyes on the source of the problem-an increase in the supply of money.
SO was correct in his assessment of the current financial meltdown. The Gaussian copula method was the invention of a man, not a woman, btw.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Byrd
I wouldn't say "wealthy", but you're very right in saying that poor women often worked low earning jobs. So did children before reforms..
But the mainstream Middle Class family, it was primarily the Male working full time, and the Female in the house/working part time etc, but not the main "bread winner" so to speak.
...and the children as well. Don't forget that they were sold be apprentices, where they were not so much "latchkey kids" as slaves. Remember Ben Franklin's bio? Paul Revere? All the others?
Women didn't work part-time, they worked full-time. Hours were long, the grandparents (if any) tended babies (if not, the younger kids did) and any workers in the household usually came home after dark.
Cute little girls were sometimes stolen and sold to brothels.
The trend that it was expected, in America, for women to work not stay home accelerated in the 50's,
Again, your history isn't au courant, I'm afraid. The trend began to be stronger during the war, when jobs needed to be done and the men were off fighting and dying. Remember "Rosie the Riveter?"
and by the 80's the "equality" movement had women making a good portion of their husbands salary..
So are you saying that it's okay for anyone who's not a Regular White Guy to work as long as you don't have to pay them as much as you do a RWG? That the "equality movement" should be ashamed of itself because women doctors wanted to make the same salary that their colleagues were?
Or, that as a high level programmer, MY taking wages equal to a man's is a crime against humanity? That the man in the next cubicle who didn't know a GREP from a PROC with a manual and a clue bus and couldn't spec a network even with the vendor's help deserved to be paid twice what I was paid?
So...that would be NOT advocating "merit based pay", then. It's been done before (historically) and of course you can have a deeply divided society like that. What you find is that the best and brightest migrate to countries where merit based pay holds the rule.
I think your views are rather extreme, almost ranting.. I don't think you are understanding my point..
Yes, I am.
I lived during all those eras. Been there, saw that. Got the nickle. In fact, I'm an old school Feminist from the 1960's and remember vividly the abuses of the system and the troubles faced by women whose husbands abandoned them and their families and bosses laying them off or not paying them what they paid male colleagues. I remember being given secretarial jobs at half the pay (with a biology degree) while high school boys were given jobs (at twice the pay) to work in the lab. They were terrible at it because they weren't trained. I had the training but because I was a woman the only job I could have was typing.
Any time a society disenfranchises any of its members (by race, gender, economic status) and denies them equal opportunity to advance and equal pay, then that society starts losing its best and brightest to other places.
Look around at the world. In the wealthier countries, which ones have a "women stay home and tend the kids and don't work" policy? Look at the poorest countries. How many of those have a "women go out and get equal pay for equal work" policy?
The person who wrote the article obviously didn't take a look at the workers of different countries and the societies and the debt ratios. Otherwise, he would have found that the rising force for the debt load is not women but a lack of emphasis on savings and money management.
It's much easier to blame it all on women, though. Particularly if you don't bother looking at societies where women aren't allowed in the workforce or given equality in the workforce.
Here is a video that may shed some light on the subject. Jump past the credits right to 45 seconds in and listen.
Google Video Link |
reply to post by Rockpuck
You are one of the saddest people that I have every seen on this site. Shame on you!
I feel sorry for you though, I really do.
You are one of the saddest people that I have every seen on this site. Shame on you!
I feel sorry for you though, I really do.
Originally posted by OKCBtard
Just for the record, this thread is not about your personal life or your own failure to meet a man. It is about Women causing the credit crunch!
As far as women causing the credit crunch, read my previous two posts just directly above this one.
As far as making this thread about me, I wasn't trying to. But when a man tries to pin the problems of the world on women, all women have a duty to stand up and state the obvious, which is that if men were responsible these days to begin with, we wouldn't be in this credit crunch in the first place.
Many men these days (although not all of them) are not responsible for themselves, or their relationships, or their families anymore. What makes them think that if they don't take personal responsibility, they can be responsible for society's financial health?
Men are trying to blame the credit crunch on women, but many of them aren't even responsible for themselves as human beings, let alone being responsible enough to be society's bread winners.
THAT was my point.
[edit on 3-3-2009 by nikiano]
Originally posted by Whisper67
I'm sure you made the title of your thread sexist on purpose to generate attention but I ask you this...
If you're placing your whole argument on a dual income family, while single out the female? Why is it the womans fault? A man is just as capable of staying home and nurturing the family or perhaps you don't see your gender as capable of this much responsibility. Why not title the thread dual income families caused the credit crunch? Here your logic fails me...miserably.
Another failure in your thread is 'working women.' This doesn't suggest the marital status of the female whatsoever. Would you have rather I golddigged my way around until I finally decided to marry in my thrities, not contributing to myself or society?
I've never been a single mother so I can't speak for them even through I can clearly hear their voices screaming at your thread. Not that it matters, my dad instilled into me a strong work ethic and provided me with an education so I would always be able to support myself no matter what. After I married and had a baby, I did become a stay at home mom and that was the only rational admittance on your part that yes indeed, it is much more difficult, and often thankless, job then crunching numbers in a cubicle.
Have another shot and think before you thread. I'm expecting your next thread to read:
Females Responsible For Govt Crisis-Revoke Their Right To Vote!
lol wow man you really opened up a can of worms on this subject. good luck to you in all your future endevours, and may they be more kind to you than this thread will be....
reply to post by orangetom1999
You cannot have it both ways. Either we are lazy no good gold diggers who are livin' off our man, or we're selfish feminist nazis who are takin' a good man's job.
As for these women who are leeches, I think it's wrong to paint all women with the same brush, however, why do you think some women behave in this manner?
Let's try and look at this with an objective eye. Fact: some women take advantage of men, marrying for money and status and often marrying men that they can manipulate and control. But we do not know if this happens any more than it ever has. So we cannot call that a fact. But we can allow that, by definition, the system has always encouraged such behavior, even moreso when women had less options than they do now. In fact, (no pun intended), my understanding is that it was even accepted back when. Afterall, if you HAVE to marry for your prosperity, wouldn't you want to marry someone with some material wealth, and knowing that you lose nearly every right you might have otherwise, wouldn't you want a husband that you could influence or control?
As for men marrying for the same reasons, and it not being an accepted norm - why would it be? Men have historically had no reason: they've been the ones with all the opportunites and legal rights. Though I can't imagine that a man wouldn't want to marry some wealthy girl back in the day, knowing that all her wealth and land would become his upon marriage, and I mean 'his' in the fashion that she would no longer have any right or right to a say in it. Do we know how rare these things were? No clue, no way to claim any fact about it, other than seeing a bit of logic in the 'might happen' scenerio above.
So you're right, that this behavior happens more with women than men. I also think this discussion doesn't do anything to discount my earlier post's points.
Now a reply to Merigold:
Well I did get that from the article, that one of the main points was, "Hey, send all the women back to their homes and there will be plenty of jobs for men". And then I did provide that even if we're talking not 'banning' women from work, but rather, pushing for an accepted norm that women shouldn't work, that it could be the proverbal slippery slope.
Women should be able to be caretakers/homemakers and not be demeaned for it. I don't see anything wrong with it. I feel very strongly that we disdain the feminine (she throws like a girl!) and that it's wrong. So I don't disagree with you at all.
You cannot have it both ways. Either we are lazy no good gold diggers who are livin' off our man, or we're selfish feminist nazis who are takin' a good man's job.
As for these women who are leeches, I think it's wrong to paint all women with the same brush, however, why do you think some women behave in this manner?
Let's try and look at this with an objective eye. Fact: some women take advantage of men, marrying for money and status and often marrying men that they can manipulate and control. But we do not know if this happens any more than it ever has. So we cannot call that a fact. But we can allow that, by definition, the system has always encouraged such behavior, even moreso when women had less options than they do now. In fact, (no pun intended), my understanding is that it was even accepted back when. Afterall, if you HAVE to marry for your prosperity, wouldn't you want to marry someone with some material wealth, and knowing that you lose nearly every right you might have otherwise, wouldn't you want a husband that you could influence or control?
As for men marrying for the same reasons, and it not being an accepted norm - why would it be? Men have historically had no reason: they've been the ones with all the opportunites and legal rights. Though I can't imagine that a man wouldn't want to marry some wealthy girl back in the day, knowing that all her wealth and land would become his upon marriage, and I mean 'his' in the fashion that she would no longer have any right or right to a say in it. Do we know how rare these things were? No clue, no way to claim any fact about it, other than seeing a bit of logic in the 'might happen' scenerio above.
So you're right, that this behavior happens more with women than men. I also think this discussion doesn't do anything to discount my earlier post's points.
Now a reply to Merigold:
Well I did get that from the article, that one of the main points was, "Hey, send all the women back to their homes and there will be plenty of jobs for men". And then I did provide that even if we're talking not 'banning' women from work, but rather, pushing for an accepted norm that women shouldn't work, that it could be the proverbal slippery slope.
Women should be able to be caretakers/homemakers and not be demeaned for it. I don't see anything wrong with it. I feel very strongly that we disdain the feminine (she throws like a girl!) and that it's wrong. So I don't disagree with you at all.
new topics
-
Expert Says Parents Should Ask Babies Permission to Change Nappies.
General Chit Chat: 1 hours ago -
Hard evidence of a Royal plot on the US....if only i had proof.
ATS Skunk Works: 2 hours ago -
Do you name your cars ?
General Chit Chat: 2 hours ago -
Jim Biden Was in Business with Qatari Officials
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago -
I may have had a talk with Pope Francis about his plans for our nation
The Gray Area: 5 hours ago -
Sleep paralysis and the implantation of some weird Matrix-esque demon creature...
The Gray Area: 6 hours ago -
Say his name
US Political Madness: 7 hours ago -
There is no such thing as moonlight.
General Chit Chat: 8 hours ago -
5 probed after 18-year old girl dies as a result of having the COVID jab
Diseases and Pandemics: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
5 probed after 18-year old girl dies as a result of having the COVID jab
Diseases and Pandemics: 9 hours ago, 17 flags -
Say his name
US Political Madness: 7 hours ago, 15 flags -
Jim Biden Was in Business with Qatari Officials
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago, 12 flags -
Official denial
Diseases and Pandemics: 12 hours ago, 10 flags -
Hamas and Other Islamist Terrorist Groups Announce Support of US Campus Anti-Israel Protests
Education and Media: 12 hours ago, 7 flags -
MEGA - Let's Make Europe Great Again
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 7 flags -
Sleep paralysis and the implantation of some weird Matrix-esque demon creature...
The Gray Area: 6 hours ago, 7 flags -
I may have had a talk with Pope Francis about his plans for our nation
The Gray Area: 5 hours ago, 6 flags -
Psychotronic Operation Rwanda Who Wants To Be A Refugee?
ATS Skunk Works: 13 hours ago, 6 flags -
Expert Says Parents Should Ask Babies Permission to Change Nappies.
General Chit Chat: 1 hours ago, 6 flags
active topics
-
Expert Says Parents Should Ask Babies Permission to Change Nappies.
General Chit Chat • 19 • : Oldcarpy2 -
MEGA - Let's Make Europe Great Again
Other Current Events • 43 • : RustEShackelFord -
4/27/24 New Jersey Earthquake
Fragile Earth • 8 • : Therealbeverage -
Jim Biden Was in Business with Qatari Officials
US Political Madness • 43 • : Sookiechacha -
There is no such thing as moonlight.
General Chit Chat • 19 • : yeahright -
Do you name your cars ?
General Chit Chat • 11 • : RustEShackelFord -
Hard evidence of a Royal plot on the US....if only i had proof.
ATS Skunk Works • 6 • : angelchemuel -
AI phrenology
Science & Technology • 20 • : Therealbeverage -
Big Storms
Fragile Earth • 21 • : lilzazz -
Krystalnacht on today's most elite Universities?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 28 • : Irishhaf