Positive results of feminism ?

[AngryAtheist8]

A lot of posters mention that “Equal Pay” and presumably, “Equal Opportunity” have been Positive effects of Feminism. That position seems incompetent (no offense meant, just a fact) to me, because Equal Pay encourages Women To Work and, as an unavoidable result, discourages Men To Work, because Men have to compete with them, instead of just **taking care of them! **

So, it seems reasonable to conclude: it is toxic to family life and, by extension, Life As We Know It.

All the “positives” from Feminism seem to revolve around, The Sexual Revolution/The Modern Era and its fallout.
:stretcher:

So your saying women are better off if their completely dependent on men?

 

[Cambridge]

Feminism as defined by Betty Friedan is a crock and is incompatible with Christianity. Authentic femininity should be embraced. The problem with the feminist movement is that it taught women that in order to show that we are worth as much as men, we must act like men. That’s false. We’re already worth as much in the eyes of God, and our roles as mothers, wives, and daughters are just as important, albeit different, than the roles of men. All going out into the workforce does is diminish the role of motherhood and hurt children. Children are no longer thought of as important enough to be a full time job, unless it’s for a daycare worker being paid to do it.
I am not saying that men never did anything to warrant a negative reaction in women. Certainly many societies treated women as property and undervalued our God-given dignity. However, the approach to remedy these attitudes was just as bad and has ultimately proven more destructive. I have trouble believing that men treated women as badly as they do today when they thought of them as simple like children. Now it’s our fault if we get pregnant and a man is considered responsible if he offers to pay for the abortion instead of marry a woman to protect her reputation.
I think people are uncomfortable with saying women should be submissive and that is unfortunate. We are all called to be submissive to God. Submission is a good thing, when it’s to the right thing. A family can only have one head. A woman is called to be the heart. A body cannot live without either organ or with two of one and none of the other. Saint Paul tells men to love their wives because men sort of need to be trained into showing loving gestures and not taking us for granted. He tells women to submit to your husbands because our defect as women is a tendency toward shrewish disrespect of our beloved’s inherent dignity as a man. Then he tells us that our bodies are not our own, that a man’s is his wife’s and vice versa. There is to be mutual self-giving, obviously in things physical, but also in other areas. I think when it boils down to important decisions that a man should be given final say as the head. If you don’t trust him to make important decisions, why did you marry him?
Incidentally, God revealed Himself as Father through Jesus because he wants us to have a loving familial relationship with Him, but also because He wants the dignity and authority of the role of Father respected. Feminism from Betty Friedan does nothing to explain a healthy relationship with man as father or husband or son. It teaches of man as oppressor.
With all due respect, SoCal, your arguments seems as fruity as the Napa Valley. There is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles, and if they were meant to be the same, God would have stopped with Adam. There’s something unique about woman, and she is from God, so it is good. Let’s focus on the uniqueness of man and woman instead of the false compassion of androgyny.

:clapping::

I like that!

My impression is that Feminism is basically a reaction to the unintended consequences of Sexual Liberation, by women and some men, who wanted to embrace Sexual Liberation, but discovered that Traditional Roles broke down, when Sexual Liberation was part of the mix. In other words, in a Sexually Liberated Culture, Traditional Gender Roles become Oppressive/Dysfunctional To Women and, in some ways, to men too.

A man and woman engage in a traditionally forbidden affair, because they’ve been sexually liberated. The women gets pregnant. The man’s passion for her wanes, in proportion to the size of the responsibility growing inside her. Hence, he heads for the hills! Now she is stuck with the responsibility of a child, without any help from him. Moreover, other men may see her as a degenerate, who is not worthy of marriage. So, now, what does she do!? Well, if all the good jobs go to men and no half-way decent man wants to take care of some other guys baby, by some girl who has a history of fooling around, then she is going to live in poverty/homelessness.

O.k., so Feminism fights to guarantee Birth Control (including abortion) and Sexual Education to women, before they reach the age at which they could conceive.

With Sexual Liberation, Men and Women cannot be relied on to remain in a marriage. The vow becomes, “For As Long As We Both Shall Love.” Instead of, “For As Long As We Both Shall Live.” So relationships become Temporary. Hence, Traditional Roles for women, become Dysfunctional. Unless a girl can get a new guy every time she gets dumped or loses her passion for some guy, then she has to support herself, somehow! Is it gonna be Prostitution or Concubinage for some rich guy or is she gonna sell her blood or what?

O.k., so Feminism fights to guarantee Education and Jobs to women.

So, if a Culture repudiates Sexual Liberation, then it can repudiate Feminism. Otherwise, it seems like all it can do is tweak it.

Also, all the Radicalism of The 1960s, doesn’t explain The Roaring 20s, Weimar Germany, The French Revolution or Priests and Nuns repudiating their vows and getting married, in The Protestant Reformation. Yet, all those things seem to involve Sexual Liberation, on a grand scale, too. So, I wouldn’t think of Sexual Liberation or Feminism, in The West, as just a 1960s thing.

If you watch “A Free Soul” (1930s) with Clark Gable or “Beyond The Rocks,” (1920s) with Rudolph Valentino, you should notice that they are tearing down Traditional barriers. You can’t blame that on Baby Boomers; that generation seems to get a bad rap!

 

[Cambridge]

The thing that seems to be missing though is how are Men supposed to deal with Sexual Liberation and the unintended consequences of Feminism. For example, with women entering the workforce, men are displaced from the work force. Apparently, adding women to the work force, did not create enough jobs to replace all the jobs that men lost. And so, I guess that is supposed to be fair, because some men suffer and some women suffer too, but is that really true? When men and women age are the jobs available to women, more conducive to old people and the jobs available to men less conducive to old age. It would appear so! O.k., so what are all these old guys supposed to do? If they can’t work on a roof anymore, but comparable women can still work as a nurses aid, is that fair? It doesn’t seem like it. So, Sexual Liberation and the resultant Feminism seem to drive men into Poverty and perhaps even homelessness.

What about kids? Don’t the courts try to give the kids to the woman? With women working is that really fair? It doesn’t seem like it. So, again Sexual Liberation and Feminism seems to be leaving men lonely and without support from children in their old age.

I don’t know, but I’m not surprised a lot of guys are angry, because this culture seems to have been tweaked too far against men.

Anyway, it reminds me of being a prisoner of Venus.

 

[Julianna]

The thing that seems to be missing though is how are Men supposed to deal with Sexual Liberation and the unintended consequences of Feminism. For example, with women entering the workforce, men are displaced from the work force. Apparently, adding women to the work force, did not create enough jobs to replace all the jobs that men lost. And so, I guess that is supposed to be fair, because some men suffer and some women suffer too, but is that really true? When men and women age are the jobs available to women, more conducive to old people and the jobs available to men less conducive to old age. It would appear so! O.k., so what are all these old guys supposed to do? If they can’t work on a roof anymore, but comparable women can still work as a nurses aid, is that fair? It doesn’t seem like it. So, Sexual Liberation and the resultant Feminism seem to drive men into Poverty and perhaps even homelessness.

What about kids? Don’t the courts try to give the kids to the woman? With women working is that really fair? It doesn’t seem like it. So, again Sexual Liberation and Feminism seems to be leaving men lonely and without support from children in their old age.

I don’t know, but I’m not surprised a lot of guys are angry, because this culture seems to have been tweaked too far against men.

Anyway, it reminds me of being a prisoner of Venus.

**Do tell what jobs did men lose when women entered the workforce? Your logic is faulty. Did women drag men kicking and screaming into “sexual liberation”? Do educated women scare you? A woman engineer should make the same money as her male counterpart, but that is not the case…even today. This culture is not tweaked too far against men, only in your mind. Why wouldn’t you agree with the courts giving custody of children to women…after all are they the “nuturing” ones? Men, lonely? Life is what you make it, dear. **

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I like that!

My impression is that Feminism is basically a reaction to the unintended consequences of Sexual Liberation, by women and some men, who wanted to embrace Sexual Liberation, but discovered that Traditional Roles broke down, when Sexual Liberation was part of the mix. In other words, in a Sexually Liberated Culture, Traditional Gender Roles become Oppressive/Dysfunctional To Women and, in some ways, to men too.

A man and woman engage in a traditionally forbidden affair, because they’ve been sexually liberated. The women gets pregnant. The man’s passion for her wanes, in proportion to the size of the responsibility growing inside her. Hence, he heads for the hills! Now she is stuck with the responsibility of a child, without any help from him. Moreover, other men may see her as a degenerate, who is not worthy of marriage. So, now, what does she do!? Well, if all the good jobs go to men and no half-way decent man wants to take care of some other guys baby, by some girl who has a history of fooling around, then she is going to live in poverty/homelessness.

O.k., so Feminism fights to guarantee Birth Control (including abortion) and Sexual Education to women, before they reach the age at which they could conceive.

With Sexual Liberation, Men and Women cannot be relied on to remain in a marriage. The vow becomes, “For As Long As We Both Shall Love.” Instead of, “For As Long As We Both Shall Live.” So relationships become Temporary. Hence, Traditional Roles for women, become Dysfunctional. Unless a girl can get a new guy every time she gets dumped or loses her passion for some guy, then she has to support herself, somehow! Is it gonna be Prostitution or Concubinage for some rich guy or is she gonna sell her blood or what?

O.k., so Feminism fights to guarantee Education and Jobs to women.

So, if a Culture repudiates Sexual Liberation, then it can repudiate Feminism. Otherwise, it seems like all it can do is tweak it.

Also, all the Radicalism of The 1960s, doesn’t explain The Roaring 20s, Weimar Germany, The French Revolution or Priests and Nuns repudiating their vows and getting married, in The Protestant Reformation. Yet, all those things seem to involve Sexual Liberation, on a grand scale, too. So, I wouldn’t think of Sexual Liberation or Feminism, in The West, as just a 1960s thing.

If you watch “A Free Soul” (1930s) with Clark Gable or “Beyond The Rocks,” (1920s) with Rudolph Valentino, you should notice that they are tearing down Traditional barriers. You can’t blame that on Baby Boomers; that generation seems to get a bad rap!

Your forgetting some important things.

Yes, a desirable woman from a good family could probably find a good match, and (assuming her husband was faithful and decent to her) live relatively well under the old system.

But what about all the unattractive girls from the lower class?
How were they supposed to marry into the good life?

Moreover, poor women have always had to work.

 

[dusty_david]

“The thing that seems to be missing though is how are Men supposed to deal with Sexual Liberation and the unintended consequences of Feminism. For example, with women entering the workforce, men are displaced from the work force. Apparently, adding women to the work force, did not create enough jobs to replace all the jobs that men lost. And so, I guess that is supposed to be fair, because some men suffer and some women suffer too, but is that really true? When men and women age are the jobs available to women, more conducive to old people and the jobs available to men less conducive to old age. It would appear so! O.k., so what are all these old guys supposed to do? If they can’t work on a roof anymore, but comparable women can still work as a nurses aid, is that fair? It doesn’t seem like it. So, Sexual Liberation and the resultant Feminism seem to drive men into Poverty and perhaps even homelessness.”

You may want to have a little chat with some older southern African American women who left their homes at dawn to sweep, clean, cook, and do laundry for wealthier white people and got home past dark. And yup, they were paid pennies. What men did they displace?

Also, have a talk with single mothers trying to make ends meet in the “good old days.” Single mothers deserted/abandoned by their no good husbands. It did happen. No what jobs did these ladies take from men? Please let me know. I’m a son of a lady deserted by her “husband” and watched her grow old working 12 hrs shifts to keep us kids fed. So please, please, please tell me what men she kicked out of work in her job as a nurse.

I think some guys don’t like competing with women and resent the challenge. Women who talk better, think faster and work harder. No one likes to be outsmarted and losing. Some guys are sore losers. Too bad, so sad.

 

[vera_dicere]

I think some guys don’t like competing with women and resent the challenge. Women who talk better, think faster and work harder. No one likes to be outsmarted and losing. Some guys are sore losers. Too bad, so sad.

Well, that’s exactly it. For years generations men have heard they are almost superior to women, and that women are the “weaker sex”. So when a woman shows up, smarter, a better worker, et cetera, some men just don’t like that. Well, tough.

Its kind of sad actually. Its also in the same vein of “real men don’t cry”. That kind of old skool thinking only harms families.

No woman should be dependant on a man. LIkewise, no man should be dependant on a woman. Married couples, however, they are not so much in a situation where one is relying on the other, it is a team effort, and sometimes, like a team, one player may need time out, or a prop up, but later in the game, that player steps up to bat.

 

[vera_dicere]

And I only just noticed how old this thread is… oh well.

 

[Cambridge]

“The thing that seems to be missing though is how are Men supposed to deal with Sexual Liberation and the unintended consequences of Feminism. For example, with women entering the workforce, men are displaced from the work force. Apparently, adding women to the work force, did not create enough jobs to replace all the jobs that men lost. And so, I guess that is supposed to be fair, because some men suffer and some women suffer too, but is that really true? When men and women age are the jobs available to women, more conducive to old people and the jobs available to men less conducive to old age. It would appear so! O.k., so what are all these old guys supposed to do? If they can’t work on a roof anymore, but comparable women can still work as a nurses aid, is that fair? It doesn’t seem like it. So, Sexual Liberation and the resultant Feminism seem to drive men into Poverty and perhaps even homelessness.”

You may want to have a little chat with some older southern African American women who left their homes at dawn to sweep, clean, cook, and do laundry for wealthier white people and got home past dark. And yup, they were paid pennies. What men did they displace?

Also, have a talk with single mothers trying to make ends meet in the “good old days.” Single mothers deserted/abandoned by their no good husbands. It did happen. No what jobs did these ladies take from men? Please let me know. I’m a son of a lady deserted by her “husband” and watched her grow old working 12 hrs shifts to keep us kids fed. So please, please, please tell me what men she kicked out of work in her job as a nurse.

I think some guys don’t like competing with women and resent the challenge. Women who talk better, think faster and work harder. No one likes to be outsmarted and losing. Some guys are sore losers. Too bad, so sad.

Wouldn’t you rather of had your mother and father work out their differences and stay married and had your father take care of you, so that you could of had a normal childhood, instead of coming from a broken home, where your mother was so busy working, that she didn’t have time to take care of you and raise you?

Do you really think you should despise your father? Do you think you should feel guilty for that?

Do you think it is good for mothers to work, when they have kids who need them at home?

How exactly are men supposed to take care of women and children, when they have to compete with them for the jobs they need to provide for their families?

If women are such good nurturers, then shouldn’t they be at home, instead of at work?

If men are supposed to be good providers, then shouldn’t we try to help them be providers, instead of sabotaging them?

If men are supposed to take care of their kids, then shouldn’t we make it harder for women to divorce them and throw them out of the house?

If people’s passions running amok is what causes disasters, like broken homes, then don’t you think we should all try and control our passions?

 

[Pug]

If men are supposed to take care of their kids, then shouldn’t we make it harder for women to divorce them and throw them out of the house?

If people’s passions running amok is what causes disasters, like broken homes, then don’t you think we should all try and control our passions?

I’ve sometimes wondered if it would achieve results in *some *cases if a woman’s relatives were allowed to deal with her husband if he proves abusive. Perhaps then there would be some chance of him stopping abusing and starting with being a father, without requiring her and the kids to move out permanently for their own safety. But how many women have an extensive set of relatives these days, anyway?

Yes, we ought to control our passions! Some people need motivation and assistance to do that.

 

[Timothy17]

I think you are better off paying married men more than unmarried men. That’s the ticket.

No. People should be paid what they are worth in terms of education/training, experience, and ability to do said job. That’s it. That’s all.

Do you realize how tyrannical that statement is ? Who are you to dictate what another should pay someone ?

The logic in your assertion is flawed. It is perfectly reasonable to pay married men more money than unmarried men in general (ceteris paribus). Do you work ? If you do, might I ask your general opinion and observation on which men are more sociable, more cooperative, more eager at times and yet obedient in general, and more willing to work overtime, more willing to invest his time to ensure the overall good of the company he is in ? The married man, in general, is usually more valuable than the single man, because the married man is invested, quite literally, into society. He needs society, he needs work, he needs opportunity, he needs a good reputation, etc.

When you dictate the terms for payment, as you have done, you do a serious injustice by inventing a fiction in opposition to reality.

My best friend paid 20% less in car insurance the moment he said, “I do.” Why ? I felt cheated ! I felt robbed ! Why should he pay less insurance than I do ? It took a long time, but I realized why : my best friend is now far less likely to stupidly jeopardize his life, far more likely to drive with care, especially when his wife (who might be pregnant) is in the car with him. It makes perfect sense.

Married men are more stable, in general, than unmarried men. Married men have a reason to subject themselves to the world of work ; unmarried men see the world of work merely as, at most, a means of opportunity and self-gratification, whereas married men need and respect it. This is no insult to either party : unmarried men must work to survive. This debases their natural sense of human dignity. It lacks human fulfillment and value in that sense for them. For them, it is a pure imposition on their time, their liberty, their freedom. The only benefit is the material dainties that it might provide : hardly a motivation to immerse yourself mind, body, and spirit into the world of work. It is a civil dictate from their perspective. For married men, work is the sustenance of their families, of their dearly beloved. Work allows them to have and keep and provide for their families, and is no longer purely an imposition on their freedom, but a means of expanding that freedom. Work is fundamentally different for family men than it is for bachelors, because they relate to it and engage in it for vastly different reasons.

No, a married man should NOT be paid more than a single man, or a woman, or whatever.
I would be one highly pissed individual if I found out that I was getting less than a married man who had the same amount of training, experience, and ability…simply b/c he was married with a wife and kids to support. SO? I have a child to support, too…and even if I DID NOT, what’s that to anyone? I am performing the same service, I should get paid the same. Don’t matter what my life is like outside of my job. That’s*** my*** problem.

Your railing against the system is akin to my anger at my friend’s 20% car insurance discount for being married ; nonetheless, you at once and firstly mentioned your child. I am curious : how much do you work for your child ? Are you only “sometimes” working for the child, “most” of the time, “all” of the time, or none of the time ? Something tells me you consciously and actively work for your child, and when you want to throw off the chain of work, the one thing that ultimately prevents you is your child ; therefore, because you have a child to love and provide for, are you more or less likely to willy-nilly quit your job, to ruin your chances of opportunity at that job ? You are less. You possess something the single, childless man does not : a reason to work or rather someone to work for. You bring love to your work, the love you have for your child, the single, unwed man does not ; however, for the sake of the chance of having a wife, a home, a family, then a single, childless man may imitate the wed family man, and behave like him, merely for the hope and opportunity of having his own one day. This, too, makes him more valuable than the man who could “care-less.”

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

Well, that’s exactly it. For years generations men have heard they are almost superior to women, and that women are the “weaker sex”. So when a woman shows up, smarter, a better worker, et cetera, some men just don’t like that. Well, tough.

What a noxious, silly, useless fiction.

The idiotic assumption that men simply do not like competing with women because they might lose is ridiculous : I assure you, the presence of women in the work-force is quite stimulating for men, albeit at times even distracting. It is just as easy to argue that the presence of women in the workforce causes many men to become over-achievers in order to impress themselves on would-be or potential spouses ; however, an overly sexualized environment can be detrimental to the overall good of the company, and therefore companies discipline their work force to be singularly engaged in work and the necessary mentality thereof ; i.e., to consign themselves to the work in body, spirit and mind, at least while at work.

Its kind of sad actually. Its also in the same vein of “real men don’t cry”. That kind of old skool thinking only harms families.

Please produce a shred of evidence that the men-don’t-cry myth = harmed families. It’s a myth, a fiction, a fairy tale, and is meant to balance extremes, not be an extreme : it teaches men to reserve their emotions, to not be overly emotional, especially in the company of peers or strangers. A break-down is never a pleasant, dignifying or comfortable sight ; however, “real men” ought to know when a break-down might be coming or something has happened that warrants emotion. Dealing with their emotions should done in the presence or in the company of people he can trust to care, to provide advice, to provide help, perhaps with professionals but more likely in the company of their dearest friends. I concur that it is highly dangerous for a man to take that myth and then imagine he ought never show emotion or express his most inmost anxieties, etc. For me, I save my tears for God, who of all persons is most readily able to satisfy them and me ; however, in the very closest of company I may express myself, but I am always prudent in this regard : you never show weakness in the presence of hungry wolves. That’s just begging to be ate alive.

No woman should be dependant on a man.

Another damned tyrrant ! My oh my, how the topic of feminism flushes you dictators out !

What is wrong if a woman depends on her man ? I assure you, many men are happy to be depended upon, as it provides them (phychology) with purpose in this life. It empowers them to care for themselves for the sake of another. The aforementioned formula is a simple one expressed more easily in the word, “love.”

LIkewise, no man should be dependant on a woman.

Then we must all become dependant upon mice and couches, I suppose ! God forbid we depend on one another ! God forbid the natural principles of masculine and feminine would coalesce and bear fruit to the happiness of either and both ! What a scandal ! Imagine that, natural principles naturally working for the betterment of nature ! Certainly there is something erroneous here ! No, we should attach the masculine to the masculine and the feminine to the feminine, and make unlawful any attempts to reverse this better ordering of things. Thankfully, though, such a society would soon cease to exist, as without the natural interchange and inter-reliance of male and female no society would long exist.

(cont’d)

 

[Timothy17]

Married couples, however, they are not so much in a situation where one is relying on the other, it is a team effort, and sometimes, like a team, one player may need time out, or a prop up, but later in the game, that player steps up to bat.

Now this myth perhaps trumps the other you mentioned (“real men don’t cry”) in silliness.

Teams depend on one another most intimately. If my pitcher sucks, we all lose. If I can’t throw from short-stop to first-base, then we all suffer ; however, when we work together, we flourish. Now, very often teams depend especially on the skills of one players to help prop up the less skillful ones, and we often find the most winning teams are those that balance this equation best. Many teams are extremely dependent upon their coach to provide them with leadership and correct their errors and guide them to victory and success. God forbid ! As this most brazenly violates your dictum of people depending upon one another ! Now, in reality, dependence can be perfectly advantageous when it produces positive results for the overall good of the team or the family.

Have you not heard the popular song,

“Lean on me,”

Or the lyrics from another, equally popular song,

“…And you put the load right on me !”

Imagine that ! Someone singing cheerfully and admonishing someone to take off their burdens and place them on themselves instead ! Such shameful dependence ! Why on earth would anyone desire to have another’s burdens placed upon themselves, and what’s more - encourage them to do this and then even sing a praise for the thing just done ! This, of course, must be somehow criminal - at least according to your logic.

But perhaps we should take this logic further, and return to Sparta, and submit our children to the tortures of untempered nature, and - if surviving the frost-biting cold or the blazing scorch of the Sun, then throw them out of our houses at a tender young age to be “matured” by the State, wherein they learn mortal combat and lethal skills, as well all other things necessary for the existence of a peaceful, civil society.

But seeing as civilization abhors such barbarity and mindless cruelty, I think we are far better off depending upon another from time to time, and organizing such dependence in such a manner that all are better for it : one depends, and finds hope, safety, security in or from the one they depend on ; another is depended upon, and finds meaning, purpose, and happiness in the role provided by the very act of dependence.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Julianna]

Wouldn’t you rather of had your mother and father work out their differences and stay married and had your father take care of you, so that you could of had a normal childhood, instead of coming from a broken home, where your mother was so busy working, that she didn’t have time to take care of you and raise you?

Do you really think you should despise your father? Do you think you should feel guilty for that?

Do you think it is good for mothers to work, when they have kids who need them at home?

How exactly are men supposed to take care of women and children, when they have to compete with them for the jobs they need to provide for their families?

If women are such good nurturers, then shouldn’t they be at home, instead of at work?

If men are supposed to be good providers, then shouldn’t we try to help them be providers, instead of sabotaging them?

**If men are supposed to take care of their kids, then shouldn’t we make it harder for women to divorce them and throw them out of the house? **If people’s passions running amok is what causes disasters, like broken homes, then don’t you think we should all try and control our passions?

**Regarding this statement…it just begs the following question…

In what situation, should a woman throw her husband (or leave) out of the house and seek divorce? I’ll wait for your answer.
**

I had no idea that men were competing for domestic work, ie. housecleaning, office cleaning…nursing, teaching, secretarial work. It boggles the mind. I guess the 1950’s was a decade where life as we know was bliss. Although, there were alot of female secretaries, nurses, domestic and teachers. Hmmm…my goodness, all those men out there…were just chomping at the bit to type, answer phones, take messages, take dictation, get their boss coffee every morning, drop off (and pick up) his dry cleaning, select just the perfect scarf, flowers for his boss’ wife (birthday, anniversary)…yeah those were the days.

Oh, I almost forgot…with women out of the secretarial pool, the boss wouldn’t proposition the female secretary telling her…hey give it up or it’s your job. I am so thankful, that should that happen today, the secretary could sue (no pun intended) the pants off of him.

I bet you think the perfect gift for your wife, mother, sister consist of the following: a iron, washer/dryer, umbrella clothesline, a vacuum cleaner, a new mop and bucket. Let me clue you in…appliances are not gifts…nor are they “personal”.

1. Should the wife’s name be on the deed to the house?
2. Should her name be listed as owner on the car?
3. Should she be on a joint bank account with her husband?
4. Should she handle the finances?
5. Should she ask for “permission” to spend money?
6. Should she ask “permission” to paint…er no…she can’t paint a room, she’s a woman…I mean “to have the living room painted another color”?
7. Should she understand the basics of maintaining a car?

 

[dusty_david]

Still don’t think the dude likes competing with women at work.

The first rule of winning is not to let competitors, well, compete. Sort of like the early days of school integration when us white boys weren’t real happy about having the black guys play football with us. The black guys could really run, block, and catch. And knocked me on my rear when I tried to block them. Made me and a lot of other white boys look like fools. Of course we didn’t want them playing.

Some thing 30 some years later with women in the office. Best accountants I know are women. Make me look like an idiot when I told the big bosses I expect a 7% growth in revenue next fiscal year and don’t have my facts in order. Those females should be home making sandwiches instead interrupting my song and dance with facts. Ended up me leaving the meeting and forced to work all next week correcting my figures. Damn women!

Seriously, we adults all should have the ability to support ourselves. Even the most devout christian lady can end up an young widow with kids to feed. Suggest you visit your local military base and chat with some military wives. Bring a hanky, you’ll hear some sad stories.

But I really think you just got showed up by a woman at your job and are still sore about it. Man up and get over yourself.

 

[Kaninchen]

One of the problems with these sorts of arguments - driven by one particular agenda - is that they neglect that a lot of different things are going on at the same time.

The structure of the economy is entirely different from back in the 1950’s, it isn’t that ‘Rosie the riviter’ has taken ‘Ronnie the riviter’s’ job, his job is being done by robots. It’s been a period of massive technological change and massive structural change in Western economies and these are not the result of feminism, though feminism did a lot of mind-changing about entering the world of work beyond what was, supposedly, traditional ‘women’s work’.

 

[HAnne]

Allow me, just for the sake of a few kicks, to express my opinion here.

I’m grateful to the Suffragettes who worked so hard against all odds so I could vote, have a checking account, and own property. Huzzah to my Great-Grandmother - the first woman to get a divorce in her county because her alcoholic husband was beating her and her three daughters nearly to death on a weekly basis. I couldn’t be happier than to have a woman like her in my lineage.

Hooray to my Grandmother, who married a wonderful man but they struggled to make a life together. She found side jobs so that my mother and uncle could have new shoes each year. She worked so hard in so many menial jobs. My grandfather, Lord bless him, had no idea how to handle money. In this day and age he would be considered “slow”. She managed the finances for him while still being a Godly wife in submission because he didn’t know how and I’m pleased to say that when they retired, they were millionaires because of HER investing skills and not because either of them ever made a 6 figure salary in their lives.

Hooray to my Mother, who had the courage to stand up to the feminists of her day and stay home to raise me! She worked part time doing bookkeeping for my father’s business until he left her for his secretary. Then she pulled up her bootstraps and worked 3 jobs to keep us afloat. Even working 3 jobs (down to 1-2 when she eventually remarried) she never missed a special event at school. She was never “not there” when I needed her. My hat goes off to her in thanks each and every day.

Last, but certainly not least, what of MY generation? I’m 30. I’m a stay-at-home Mom who educates my own child. I’m a submissive wife to a wonderful husband who provides for our family. Do you have ANY idea the kind of garbage a woman like me gets on a daily basis because of choosing to live in a biblical manner???

How about working on supporting those who chose to live in this way rather than ridiculing those who choose not to?

 

[Kaninchen]

Do you have ANY idea the kind of garbage a woman like me gets on a daily basis because of choosing to live in a biblical manner???

How about working on supporting those who chose to live in this way rather than ridiculing those who choose not to?

I’d agree, it’s better not to tell other women how we should all live our lives.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

phoenixrrt62,

I was teasing Cambridge. I understand how galling it would be to find out the guy in the next cubicle was paid more while you were struggling at home too and you were just as fine an employee.

Oh, ok…I see…SORRY

 

[phoenixrrt62]

Do you realize how tyrannical that statement is ? Who are you to dictate what another should pay someone ?

---

I’m not dictating anything***. I’m just stating that someone should get paid according to the level of training for said job and the ability to do said job. Actually, market forces and supply and demand dictate pay. Sure as hell ain’t me…
The logic in your assertion is flawed. It is perfectly reasonable to pay married men more money than unmarried men in general (ceteris paribus).
WHY? Why should a married male get more money-if he is performing the same service? I didn’t tell him to get married, nor did he tell me to raise a child. We are performing a service, and just because he’s married, it doesn’t make his contribution more important than mine…
Do you work ?
Yes…and I enjoy my work immensely…well, most of the time;D
If you do, might I ask your general opinion and observation on which men are more sociable, more cooperative, more eager at times and yet obedient in general, and more willing to work overtime, more willing to invest his time to ensure the overall good of the company he is in ? The married man, in general, is usually more valuable than the single man, because the married man is invested, quite literally, into society. He needs society, he needs work, he needs opportunity, he needs a good reputation, etc.

---

He IS? I missed that memo. I see some males who are single (both straight and gay, since some poster tossed gay men into the mix) who are VERY devoted to their profession, and I see some married men that are terribly irresponsible and what I call “allergic” to work. Just b/c you are married doesn’t make you a more valuable employee.***

second part of the answers follow…