|
Post by blazinheart on Jan 7, 2008 20:04:03 GMT -5
It's no secret that I embrace the differences between men and women. I think our society has done a very good job of emasculating men and hyper-masculating women. And as a result of this process, families have suffered.
I think that men are the physically stronger sex, the more natural leaders and therefore they should be the ones who work and bring home the bacon. Woman, on the other hand, are the physically weaker sex and are natural nurturers. In fact women's bodies are designed to nurture and care for children.
Yet in our society we've taken these roles and disposed of them, at our children's peril. We have women in men's roles and discouraged men from asserting themselves as leaders and sole breadwinners.
Part of this disposal of roles is due to our infatuation with material wealth. Because we all want things we are willing to sacrifice our homes, our families and our children in order to attain them.
So when I'm in a foreign country and people tell me "please, take me back to America with you", I tell them "you don't want to go there, stay here, where people still care about family".
|
|
|
Post by finding on Jan 7, 2008 22:14:46 GMT -5
I agree with you pretty much their blazin, except in that men are better leaders. The styles are different, but there are benefits to both.
In traditional roles, women lead the household. Schedules, ballet classes, scouts, etc., meals, homework, cleaning, budgets, laundry, and so on. There are a lot of leadership skills needed with those things and a lot of hard work that goes into keeping things running smoothly. I have seen many a man fall apart when put into that role.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jan 8, 2008 0:03:54 GMT -5
I don't think that it will come as any great shock to anyone that I disagree completely. People are individuals, each with his or her own strengths or weaknesses.
Being a leader and providing for one's family is not strictly a "male role". Women who take on these responsibilities are not taking on "male roles", but rather what is a natural fit for them. Same as stay-at-home dads who are happy handling household duties. Or any combination of the two. It's all a matter of what is the best fit for the individual, the relationship, and the family.
If any man feels "emasculated" by successful women, I have to wonder how confident he is in his own skin as well as his own life choices to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by gdgross on Jan 8, 2008 1:11:41 GMT -5
If any man feels "emasculated" by successful women, I have to wonder how confident he is in his own skin as well as his own life choices to begin with. Agreed. (although I don't think that's what blazin' was saying...) People should do what works for their marriage/relationship. If it's a more traditional role, then great. If it's not so much, then great. Personally, I'm down with being a stay-at-home dad. I just gotta find my sugar mama...
|
|
|
Post by blazinheart on Jan 8, 2008 10:47:26 GMT -5
I don't think that it will come as any great shock to anyone that I disagree completely. People are individuals, each with his or her own strengths or weaknesses. Being a leader and providing for one's family is not strictly a "male role". Women who take on these responsibilities are not taking on "male roles", but rather what is a natural fit for them. Same as stay-at-home dads who are happy handling household duties. Or any combination of the two. It's all a matter of what is the best fit for the individual, the relationship, and the family. If any man feels "emasculated" by successful women, I have to wonder how confident he is in his own skin as well as his own life choices to begin with. I find it rather typical and somewhat ignorant that you refuse to acknowledge any differences between men and women. So, what about the differences jules? Care to comment on those? And the fact that you can go get a job doesn't prove anything to me. Millions of 6 year olds work all day throughout the world, doesn't mean it's a good idea or condusive to a healthy family.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 8, 2008 12:33:38 GMT -5
Just because there are differences does not mean that we should pigeon hole people based on their gender. If I like chicks who are tougher than me who will change my oil while I do their dishes and laundry and change diapers why is that a concern of anyone other than me and the tough broad I have to please?
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jan 8, 2008 13:33:00 GMT -5
I find it rather typical and somewhat ignorant that you refuse to acknowledge any differences between men and women. So, what about the differences jules? Care to comment on those? And the fact that you can go get a job doesn't prove anything to me. Millions of 6 year olds work all day throughout the world, doesn't mean it's a good idea or condusive to a healthy family. Just because I didn't choose to spell out the differences between men and women doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge them. However, since you asked so politely (ahem), yes, blazin', I acknowledge that there are physiological differences between men and woman (including the brain), as well as many differences due to the way that the majority of boys and girls are socialized while growing up. For example, in general, men are more likely to be physical while women are more likely to be verbal. When venting, men are more likely to want to find a solution where as women are more likely to crave validation for their feelings. Women tend to be more artistically inclined where as men tend to be more inclined to understanding mathematics and spacial relations. Shall I go on? That said, none of these generalizations mean that these apply across the board for all women or all men. Attempting to do so is something that I find quite ignorant because it is ignoring the fact that (once again) people are individuals. Oh, and by the way, I'm certainly not employed to "prove" anything. I'm employed because as a healthy, educated adult I have an obligation to support myself. And I know you didn't mean to compare women to 6-year-old children or imply that one group ought to be as dependent as the other.
|
|
|
Post by blazinheart on Jan 8, 2008 18:45:31 GMT -5
And I know you didn't mean to compare women to 6-year-old children or imply that one group ought to be as dependent as the other. The dependence goes both ways. There are things that a husband should depend on his wife for and there are things that a wife should depend on her husband for. Problem with this is, it doesn't work. We tried doing it the other way, where the mother leaves the home to make money, it doesn't work. Divorce is rampant, kids are screwed up and our society is facing rapid moral decline. Not to mention it's totally selfish of the parents to rob their children of a parent that tends to the home and is always available for nurturing. Families are a joke nowadays. Kids are left to fend for themselves until one of the parents gets home from work and throws together some fast food dinner and then sends them off to watch tv or play video games. But hey, at least they have all that cool shit to play with, video games and computers make for a nice replacement for parents. And mommy gets to drive a nice, new car and daddy gets to have all his big boy toys and they get to buy nice clothes and take fancy vacations. What a farce. And then we wonder why it's becoming more and more common for kids to express themselves by walking into schools and shooting other kids. The dysfunction is leaving it's mark on our youth.
|
|
ladyj
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by ladyj on Jan 8, 2008 19:17:37 GMT -5
Hey, was part of this thread deleted today?
|
|
|
Post by Mod (PQ-Kermie) on Jan 8, 2008 21:21:39 GMT -5
Not by me
|
|
ladyj
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by ladyj on Jan 8, 2008 21:30:32 GMT -5
Ya sorry, I got two of blazin's threads mixed up, being female and all...........
|
|
|
Post by Phyxius on Jan 8, 2008 22:09:01 GMT -5
Ya sorry, I got two of blazin's threads mixed up, being female and all...........
|
|
|
Post by gdgross on Jan 9, 2008 1:15:57 GMT -5
Problem with this is, it doesn't work. We tried doing it the other way, where the mother leaves the home to make money, it doesn't work. Divorce is rampant, kids are screwed up and our society is facing rapid moral decline. Not to mention it's totally selfish of the parents to rob their children of a parent that tends to the home and is always available for nurturing. That's a big generalization. I personally know two families that are doing it, and they ain't divorced yet! One has four grown kids, who turned out great, and the other family is my age with a two year old and another one in the oven. I don't know if it's easier or harder for them, but that's kind of the way the financial situation ended up working out in both cases, and they made it work. They're kind of bohemian, hippie-ish people, though, so I'm sure that helps.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jan 9, 2008 1:34:40 GMT -5
Blazin' they tried it your way. Remember the 1950s? Lots of deeply unsatisfied women (Feminine Mystique) hopped up on pills (mother's little helper) raising children who would have lots of promiscuous sex and use a variety of drugs (the hippie generation), while all fathers were good for were earning money. No thanks.
I do actually agree that excessive materialism is bad for kids and families in general. However more single income families tend to be into materialistic things and showing off their fancy toys and brand names and bragging about their cars and vacations than dual income families (at least in areas where the cost of living is such that you need two incomes to be middle class, unless one income is extraordinary.) So you can't blame women working for materialism -- one has nothing to do with the other.
Say you ever had a daughter who had the intelligence and desire to be a rocket scientist (literally). Would you tell her to forgo college and find herself a nice man to take care of her? Or would you encourage her to develop her natural talent?
|
|
|
Post by blazinheart on Jan 9, 2008 12:03:09 GMT -5
Blazin' they tried it your way. Remember the 1950s? Lots of deeply unsatisfied women (Feminine Mystique) hopped up on pills (mother's little helper) raising children who would have lots of promiscuous sex and use a variety of drugs (the hippie generation), while all fathers were good for were earning money. No thanks. Women became dissatisfied when they left the home. When women started to go out and work during WWII while their husbands were over fighting and then the war was over, they became dissatisfied. They got a taste of what it's like to go out and work and earn pay and live like single women. And, as history has always shown, women are vulnerable. They become lured by the greener pasture, the happier life, the fruit that they should not eat. Men came back from WWII tired and spent. And their wives were all amped up to get out there and work and make their own way and do their own thing. So the momentum just continued to build which led to the feminist movement. The late 50s and 60s came and men were dodging drafts and shirking their responsibilities and learning to hide in fear and next thing you know, men are spineless, gutless and unable to stand up to women and represent what they believe. So this just fueled the feminist movement. Our society, our culture became wrapped up in all the things we can buy, in all the pretty things we can fill our lives with, and that became our tradition. And now, men are as spinless as ever. For a man to stand up and say that he wants to be the sole breadwinner and have his wife tend the home and raise the kids, it makes him look like a sexist pig. But I don't care what makes me look like a sexist pig. My wife is going to tend the home and raise the kids and i'm going be the sole breadwinner. And I will live this way because it is the only way that works. It is the only way that has ever worked for a society. When the mother left the home, and the husband went along with it, the family broke down. And it will continue to break down and deteriorate. This isn't an issue of women being intelligent or not. Of course women are intelligent. This is an issue of representing what I believe. My daughter will never be happy and fulfilled as a rocket scientist. No woman is truly happy and fulfilled without children, without a home, without a man that gives them a certain sense of security. It is natural for women to have children, it is what their bodies were designed to do. She will be happy as a mother and a wife. Period. And that is the message that my children will receive because that is what I believe.
|
|