Scotty Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Posted June 1, 2015 a totally ignorant comment I don't think so. My perception of it now and at the time was that those who embraced feminism were those who felt restless and bored with the traditional female role of wife and mother. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
waldo Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 I didn't think I needed to make a case that the two income family was now just about a requirement. Why do you suppose it used to be the exception? People working fairly ordinary jobs used to be able to support a family which consisted of a wife and usually three or four kids reasonably well. Can you put forth a reason why that stopped happening? And it stopped happening well before offshore outsourcing. your hyperbole aside, you may be reading... but you're certainly not comprehending! Again, a significant reason for many 2-person working family households is..... people living beyond their means. Quote
Scotty Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Posted June 1, 2015 You posted some facts, though, which would be good to have some cites. Do you see ? Let's examine what I guess I take to be facts. First, one income households used to be the norm. Now two income households seem to be necessary. Yet these two income households are no better off financially than the one income households used to be. Second. The number of people who are single even going into their middle years has skyrocketed over the past generation. You have an enormous number of men and women, easily a third of the population, possibly more, who will never have a spouse now. That's sad, and it will lead to all kinds of societal problems which include rising loneliness, suicide, etc. Third. There are way less kids now. Women are not having kids in large part because they're not in stable, long-term relationships, and because they're working, and because they can't afford to have many kids since they can't do without that additional income, and/or the cost and availability of child care. Do you think any of these need to be substantially proven with cites? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
waldo Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 I don't think so. My perception of it now and at the time was that those who embraced feminism were those who felt restless and bored with the traditional female role of wife and mother. aspiring for a better life, for equality... is not your frivolous, demeaning and trivializing assessment on being "restless and bored". Quote
Scotty Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) your hyperbole aside, you may be reading... but you're certainly not comprehending! Again, a significant reason for many 2-person working family households is..... people living beyond their means. You can't make such a direct statement using a term like 'living beyond their means'. What does that even mean in real terms? If people were content to not own a house, a car, a cell phone, have internet or cable, and didn't mind living in a really crummy apartment, then they could raise kids without two incomes? You didn't used to need a really good job to raise a family on a single income. People only want now what their parents and grandparents had with those single jobs. My grandfather worked in retail, in a department store, in charge of the menswear section. He had a wife, three children, a house he paid for, with a pool in back, and a car. Nowadays anyone who wants that has to be earning a six figure salary, and even then it's touch and go. Edited June 1, 2015 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Posted June 1, 2015 aspiring for a better life, for equality... is not your frivolous, demeaning and trivializing assessment on being "restless and bored". Granted. But did they get a better life? Did those women working in Wal-Mart get a better life? Because there is a hell of a lot more of them than there are women executives and fighter pilots. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
waldo Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Do you think any of these need to be substantially proven with cites? it's one thing to offer your claimed perceptions, it's another thing to establish facts... and it's a completely different level of onus (on you) to credibly link them. Quote
Scotty Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Posted June 1, 2015 it's one thing to offer your claimed perceptions, it's another thing to establish facts... and it's a completely different level of onus (on you) to credibly link them. I asked which of the above which I am taking for granted most people would acknowledge as factual really needed to be proven. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Black Dog Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 It was a thought which occurred to me, to be honest, when I was shopping a Wal-Mart and seeing all those tired looking middle aged women who had been on their feet all day in their little blue outfits. This is what feminism has wrought for women? These women didn't strike me as having benefited from feminism at all, and most jobs are closer to theirs than to some high flying executive. That means most women are doing lousy work they probably don't like very much in order that the very few can have great careers. Did you ask them if they were happy? No. It was born out of ambition and restlessness of some women, generally women who came from well-off families and went to university. They weren't content to simply marry an be someone's wife and mother. With which I can sympathize, by the way. It's good that such women now have all kinds of career choices. I'm saying that this has not been good for the majority of women. You assume that they would have been happier without the choice. The single mother having difficulty raising children is just one aspect of singlehood. I was thinking more of the diminished lives of such people, living alone, especially after their kids are raised. I know some single mothers whose whole lives are centered on their kid or kids. When those kids leave they're lives will become very, very empty. Imagine how much worse it would be if they couldn't get jobs. Quote
waldo Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 it's one thing to offer your claimed perceptions, it's another thing to establish facts... and it's a completely different level of onus (on you) to credibly link them. I asked which of the above which I am taking for granted most people would acknowledge as factual really needed to be proven. the comment was more broad than your "3 facts" post; again, you make claims/statements but don't provide any factual attachment to attribute your claims/statements (your opinionated perceptions) to "feminism and destroyed lives". as for your "3 facts": Let's examine what I guess I take to be facts. [waldo: you guess... guess? Factual?] First, one income households used to be the norm. Now two income households seem to be necessary. Yet these two income households are no better off financially than the one income households used to be. [waldo: "seem to be"... more of your facts? Certainly, it can be market driven, but when I suggest a significant facet of this is due to people living beyond their means..... and you ask what "living beyond your means"... means, you're purposely playing silly buggar.] Second. The number of people who are single even going into their middle years has skyrocketed over the past generation. You have an enormous number of men and women, easily a third of the population, possibly more, who will never have a spouse now. That's sad, and it will lead to all kinds of societal problems which include rising loneliness, suicide, etc. [waldo: you're all inclusive to now include men... what was your presumptuous OP topic again? Your unsubstantiated grandiose leaps aside, monogamy does not automatically imply your "destroyed life".] Third. There are way less kids now. Women are not having kids in large part because they're not in stable, long-term relationships, and because they're working, and because they can't afford to have many kids since they can't do without that additional income, and/or the cost and availability of child care. [waldo: as much as financially "means" related (per debt, wage stagnation, higher taxes, higher education costs, etc.), declining fertility rates also reflect upon delayed childbirth... having children later in life. Your apparent want for social engineering aside, I'd be interested in you factually attributing that singularly to feminism.] Do you think any of these need to be substantially proven with cites? Quote
Freddy Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) i don't think a majority of men enjoy the modern women's idea of a family. its a jack of all trades master of none approach. it dose not create a intimate dependency between the two. I personally want a relationship where I concentrate on specific tasks that I can perform for the whole family. I think women have their strengths and men have their strengths. I think individuals have their strengths and weaknesses. Finding someone that compliment and enjoy taking care of things you enjoy less is important. The appreciation you show one a other is a important part of the family love. Like a team that trusts and depend on each other. Men want it to be for better or for worse. Women want it for better or not at all. Edited June 1, 2015 by Freddy Quote
Black Dog Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 i don't think a majority of men enjoy the modern women's idea of a family. its a jack of all trades master of none approach. it dose not create a intimate dependency between the two. I personally want a relationship where I concentrate on specific tasks that I can perform for the whole family. And yet: Couples who share housework have the most sex and best sex lives Sex and housework are huge indicators of a relationship’s stability. Other studies have found that tensions over the division housework, especially if women perceive that the division is unfair, are related to a greater likelihood of unhappy marriages and divorce. Women in fact, initiate divorce at least twice as often as men. Quote
Freddy Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 And yet: Couples who share housework have the most sex and best sex lives Sex and housework are huge indicators of a relationship’s stability. Other studies have found that tensions over the division housework, especially if women perceive that the division is unfair, are related to a greater likelihood of unhappy marriages and divorce. Women in fact, initiate divorce at least twice as often as men. Men are in it for better or for worse Women are in it for better or not at all. I think men want to split the tasks in two, and specifically perform those task year round. I think women want to take every task and do them half the time. Quote
Black Dog Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Men are in it for better or for worse Women are in it for better or not at all. I think men want to split the tasks in two, and specifically perform those task year round. I think women want to take every task and do them half the time. None of these broad generalizations are particularly useful. Quote
Freddy Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 None of these broad generalizations are particularly useful. I don't particularly want to be discussing if women feel their husbands do nothing around the house. I'm interested about how women want men to be changing dirty dipers half of the time. Quote
Black Dog Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 I don't particularly want to be discussing if women feel their husbands do nothing around the house. I'm interested about how women want men to be changing dirty dipers half of the time. What's the difference? Quote
Freddy Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 What's the difference? I think men rather take care of specific task 100% For example in my family I take care of all discipline and potty training and let her take care of diapers. Quote
Black Dog Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 I think men rather take care of specific task 100% For example in my family I take care of all discipline and potty training and let her take care of diapers. Again: if such a difference exists, why does it matter? It's inconsequential. Quote
Freddy Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Again: if such a difference exists, why does it matter? It's inconsequential. I have a system that works efficiently within my tasks. She also has a system that works efficiently within her groups of task. We spend less time fighting over me or her messing up each other's system. Resulting in more sex. Quote
Black Dog Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 I have a system that works efficiently within my tasks. She also has a system that works efficiently within her groups of task. We spend less time fighting over me or her messing up each other's system. Resulting in more sex. Cool story bro. What's this have to do with society at large? Quote
Freddy Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Cool story bro. What's this have to do with society at large? Feminism has changed the family dynamics. Women have evolved Men have not Quote
Black Dog Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Feminism has changed the family dynamics. Women have evolved Men have not I won't dispute the first point. As for the last point, speak for yourself. Quote
Freddy Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 I won't dispute the first point. As for the last point, speak for yourself. Let me make it politically correct for you. Many women have changed some Men reluctant to take on new modern roles women have planned for them. Quote
Black Dog Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Let me make it politically correct for you. Many women have changed some Men reluctant to take on new modern roles women have planned for them. It's probably time men got with the program then. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.