|
Smith117 -> RE: tampons (2/23/2008 11:22:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd
Ok.. I am going to play nice and not say about 90% of the "reactionary" things that really want to fly out of my finger tips and mama smack you upside your head. Much to the disapointment of my girls here. Good thing my girl isnt in the room.. and is off fixing me a sandwich.. she would be concered about that blood vessel in my temple about to burst.
You should release that tension. C'mon....react. Like Spike says in Buffy: Season 7 after beating up a nasty looking demon "a tussle like that, is good for the soul."
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd
Ok.. let me explain something for you here cupcake.. these women do not want to be men.. we do not have penis envy... We do not want to be "manly" We want to do the same jobs and the same work.. and hopefuly for the same pay as the males because we can. Because we should. Why should 1/2 of society be held back in business and industry because some dick driven idiot ( opps slipped there) thinks it takes a dick and a pair of balls to do a particular job? Well that was proven wrong in WWII when we women ( who again didnt want to be men.. or male like) had to make those planes and tanks, and weapons for our boys overseas. Women like my grandmother.
I never said women wanted to be men. But it does say some interesting things about women when they are protected and prevented from what many have come to commonly call the HORROR of war, yet they seem to want to go off and fight anyway. For what reason, I wonder, would a woman want to get into something that even men call "the suck" if not to "prove they can." There are MANY previously male-dominated professions that do not include the 50-90% chance of death or worse that women can do. Why do they feel the need to have bullets zinging over their heads and bombs hidden at their feet? I think I would attribute such things to the feminist movement. But even that's become convoluted. However, that is for an entirely separate thread.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd
Then it was silly I suppose for women like my mother to think she could possibly be a race car driver. She did it. It was impposible for her to help out the family business and drive semis.. she did that too. It was however impossible for her to do what she really wanted which was to drive an ambulance. She was only a woman after all. She also not only had her own business (resturants) but she also raised us 3 kids after my father lost his bloody mind and left, and when my grandmother became older also took care of her.
You just made one of my points for me. Look at that paragraph. "It was silly to think.....but she did it. It was impossible for her....but she did it. She was a woman after all...." That says to me "to prove she could do it."
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd
You stated:
When, 50 years ago, staying in the home and raising a family and running the household while then man was away was a feat that surpasses what women try to do today. This is evidenced by the fact that many women simply don't do it anymore. And that's why our youths are idiots. Because the parents rush off back to work and let the TV raise the kids.
Firstly the economy was *much* different then. One income could support a whole family. Now we are lucky if you can scrape by with 2 full time incomes, and living off of credit cards.
I have not perved your profile to see if you are married with children.. but I am betting this is not the case. Raising a family is expensive. It usualy takes 2 incomes. When this happens the mother *still* comes home, takes care of the house * usualy almost by herself* and the kids. I do not see how you are thinking the "good ol days" and "Good ol ways" surpasses what our "Wonder Women" of today do. We still raise the kids, we still clean the house, take care of the husband, and bloody well work just as hard as our husbands at work.
The economy might have been different, but so were people. People had children and they could afford them. Today people feel the need to have kids and then let others raise them. The mom rushes back to work, leaving the kids in a situation that they feel they need nanny cams to watch and make sure their kids are safe because they can't afford to stay home and raise the kids on one income. This is references many many times by a local talk show host here. He has a main point, on which I agree: if you can't afford to have and to raise the kids, then don't have them.
You're right, I am not married with kids. And I don't intend to be. It's come to my attention, being very traditionally minded that I won't find a girl I see fit to marry. Even if I did I, at this point in my life, feel that kids are just not going to happen. I know that what I will do is make damned fine money. Money enough to support me and, if needed, a wife (assuming the necessary pre-nuptial agreement doesn't turn her off to the idea). I do not expect, with the rising cost of, well, everything that I will make enough to support a family. Therefore, I'm not even planning to try. I have several views of the world that would suggest to me that it would be an act of cruelty to even think of bringing a child into this world. But again, that's for another thread.
Many people today have kids for them, not for the wellfare of the kid. A child's needs are not something that should be sacrificed and, I think returning to work immediately and letting daycare or a nanny raise the child deprives the child of its necessary bonds. Again it goes back to parents letting TV raise their children and then throwing a fit to the government because their kid picked up something from TV that they didn't like.
As a side note, don't think for a second that I am bashing single working mothers. My mother was one. She and my dad divorced when I was 5 and she had no choice. However, in my tradional-mindset. I believe that a fully functioning family with a mom and a dad, SOMEONE needs to be there for the child. If that can't happen because of monetary reasons, then the couple is not financially ready to raise a child, in my opinion.
Furthermore, it is another generalization to say that working mothers work harder than fathers. I have seen many married couples. The ones in which the father does nothing are the ones I see on the rocks. I know of very few women who would let the man get away with 'doing nothing' when he comes home. My best friend is a perfect example. He and I are gamers. We meet online fairly regularly to play. I can be on the phone with him and ask if he's up for it and then instead of getting a straight answer right away, I hear "babe, he's asking if I can game later, is that cool?" He does just as much in that family as she does. He cooks, he does house maintenance, he does laundry. He watches their daughter. Oh and he does this while working sometimes 6 or even 7 days a week, getting up at 4 or 5 am and getting home 12 to 14 hours later. The days of the man "not lifting a finger" around the house are long gone. Yet that's still a generalization I hear all too frequently.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd
I do agree however that most children arent being raised.. they are growing up with little to no guidance.. and the schools are forced to teach them what the parents should. This is however not because those bad bad women want to be men, are insecure.. and should be at home baking cookies, and getting her husbands pipe and paper ready for when he comes home.
This suggests that we're arguing two points un-necessarily. My original comment was meant to show that women in the home, DO in fact have much strength. They used to be happy with that kind of strength, but now feel they must go off to war and get shot at to be perceived as "strong."
I never said I was dumping all of society's ills on women. Again, it's two seperate agruments. What I am saying, is that both sexes have their strengths, and it's ludicrous to imply that one sex isn't strong because of what it can or cannot do biologically. Things in this country used to work pretty well. The village raised the children, with the parents ultimately taking responsibility for what their kids did or didn't do or learn. And society was better for it. Now, everyone, women included, are all selfish and more concerned with their own stuff than what impact 'their stuff' has on the rest of society.
People have kids because they want them (or because they're too stupid to use birth control.) And they don't stop and think of the impact that kid is going to have on them or the rest of society because of the choices they make.
I'll close with the following, restated point:
My original post in this thread was right after yours which made broad, sweeping generalizations about men and what they can and can't do that women can. You made your generalizations, I made mine. It's funny though, how my generalizations sparked such heated controversy whereas yours did not.
This is primarily why I am the way I am. I used to be the quiet guy. I used to care what people though of me. And I'd let that dictate how I was or how I spoke. That's long over now. And when I see or hear something I feel is amiss, I will jump right into the fray without regard for how I am perceived. It's because I just don't care. I speak my mind and I make no apologies. I make no apologies because nothing I say strikes me as offensive. I mean, I could have posted in that first one and said all women were gold-digging gashes etc etc. THAT would have been offensive and obviously would accomplish nothing. What I did, however, was make a few counter-generalizations to put yours in their proper light. The lesson here is if my generalizations offended you in some way, perhaps you should stop and think about how yours make men feel before you trot out the same old, tired "men can't handle having babies" nonsense. Now, I wasn't offended by anything you said. I was actually rather amused. I can't say if I was amused 'with' you or 'by' you as I don't know if those generalizations are how you truly feel or not. If they are, then I was amused that someone can actually still believe that bullshit. If they were not, then I was amused by your comedic sense.
And once more, I'll state that in addition to that amusement, I'm further amused that a woman's generalizations (be they in a tampon thread or not) can go unnoticed and accepted, where as mine appear to have had the effect of a verbal nuclear attack.
|
|
|
|
