[Paji eh Wong]

It is another wedge issue; a manufactured outrage to energize the republican base.

They've been doing this for years, and social conservatives have steadily lost ground in modern American life. Things like gay marriage weren't even issues 30 years ago and it will become a reality, probably within the next 10 years.

This is another example of the economic conservatives riding the social conservatives into power, because the economic conservative agenda doesn't inspire anyone except a small base of weirdos.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Paji eh Wong To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is another example of the economic conservatives riding the social conservatives into power, because the economic conservative agenda doesn't inspire anyone except a small base of weirdos.

Every normal American loves his entitlement spending.

---------- Post added 06-04-2012 at 11:28 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First wrong: Women in the workforce can easily value family.

So they're happy spending more time away from family in high-powered careers?

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Second wrong: Working doesn't always equate to wealth.

Working pays more than not-working, whether you make $20k or $200k per year.

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Third wrong: The assinine assumption that women should be the ones to stay home.

Women have no tolerance for stay-at-home dads, and divorce them in short order.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So they're happy spending more time away from family in high-powered careers?

Assumption of happiness, assumption they're spending time away from their families (think outside of the box), assumption that they're in high powered careers.

	Working pays more than not-working, whether you make $20k or $200k per year.

Does this make the man just as money hungry for working instead of spending time with his family?

	Women have no tolerance for stay-at-home dads, and divorce them in short order.

Assumption. No true scotsman...

[thod]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not every woman wants to cook, clean and raise brats.

True. Feminists are like homosexuals. Non reproducing duds. Of course the question is how such women persist in the population beyond the first generation. Perhaps the price to pay of having highly masculine sons is feminist daughters. If a man were to claim he was not a man but was in fact a tree, he would be locked up. So too with feminists. A mental disorder where women claim not to be women.

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	True. Feminists are like homosexuals. Non reproducing duds. Of course the question is how such women persist in the population beyond the first generation. Perhaps the price to pay of having highly masculine sons is feminist daughters. If a man were to claim he was not a man but was in fact a tree, he would be locked up. So too with feminists. A mental disorder where women claim not to be women.

Disorder's relative. Check your relatives.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	True. Feminists are like homosexuals. Non reproducing duds.

Was being compared to homosexuals supposed to be an insult? If so, a swing and a miss. As a Feminist, it's no different than being compared to any other person, shrug worthy. As far as non-producing, this Feminist has already reproduced. How about you? Have you reproduced or are you a non-producing dud too?

	Of course the question is how such women persist in the population beyond the first generation.

We breed.

	Perhaps the price to pay of having highly masculine sons is feminist daughters. If a man were to claim he was not a man but was in fact a tree, he would be locked up. So too with feminists. A mental disorder where women claim not to be women.

Nonsensical since Feminists don't claim to be anything besides women if biologically female or men, if biologically male or transgendered, if transgendered, or lesbians, if biologically lesbian, well, you get the picture and if not, I suspect the rest of INTJf could easily understand.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Assumption of happiness, assumption they're spending time away from their families (think outside of the box), assumption that they're in high powered careers.

Actually, I'm mixing your post with
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in a similar thread.

Nwfn in the other thread seems to think that a woman taking a menial job to take care of the kids is no different from her living in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. Nuclear families do not preclude the woman from taking low-intensity part-time work. It does preclude the woman from becoming a high-powered executive or lawyer.

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does this make the man just as money hungry for working instead of spending time with his family?

Men are more money-hungry. See the thread I linked above.

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Assumption. No true scotsman...

Study:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, I'm mixing your post with To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in a similar thread. Nwfn in the other thread seems to think that a woman taking a menial job to take care of the kids is no different from her living in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. Nuclear families do not preclude the woman from taking low-intensity part-time work. It does preclude the woman from becoming a high-powered executive or lawyer.

I'm not Nwfn and neither are most women.

	Men are more money-hungry. See the thread I linked above.

Not going to read the entire thread to figure out your stance. Explain your stance and how it's applicable to all Feminists.

	Study: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Did this study control for Feminism, as in all the women surveyed were Feminists?

[topquark]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	True. Feminists are like homosexuals. Non reproducing duds. Of course the question is how such women persist in the population beyond the first generation. Perhaps the price to pay of having highly masculine sons is feminist daughters. If a man were to claim he was not a man but was in fact a tree, he would be locked up. So too with feminists. A mental disorder where women claim not to be women.

What a bizarre statement! Please can you cite your source of a feminist claiming "not to be a woman"?

[Zsych]

I gather that several changes recently are biased towards reducing the freedoms and protections that women have gained. Aside from the abortion thing, I can't say for sure if some changes are inherently good or bad.

The whole abortion thing is mostly a religious issue and related to the issue of what life is, and how much it should be valued... stuff for which there are no clear answers.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Did this study control for Feminism, as in all the women surveyed were Feminists?

Not sure that matters since on average, these types of relationships seem to be mostly non-functional at the moment.


The reverse side of the question of whether women should work might be, "Should men work?" Should men be forced to believe that they should, while women are not?

... and its really not like most people - men or women - have glorious careers. If a woman is working three jobs to take care of kids for example, that's not freedom or choice, or her making her way in the world.
There is a lot of selling dreams in the US, but really, most people don't live amazing dream lives even when they do work very hard. Traditional relationships might actually have left people happier because at least they would have stronger emotional bonds and the peace and strength that comes from that.

(Those people of course, not being INTJ) This whole high independence lifestyle that people have been sold on, really doesn't sound like ESFJ/ESTJ mainstream natural preference. I think people have been idolizing the wrong kind of people - strategies that work well one time out of a thousand.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not going to read the entire thread to figure out your stance. Explain your stance and how it's applicable to all Feminists.

Women who raise their own children are limited to low-intensity work, the sort of work that has traditionally been performed by women. You can't blow off a meeting with a Chinese diplomat because your kid has a bake sale.

Thus, feminists who feel that raising their children (nuclear-family-style) disadvantages them, seek high-powered careers. This is why feminists continually rant about the number of female CEOs and Politicians. A woman who neglects her children and husband to be a CEO or Politician values money/power more than her family, as witness by her behavior. If you don't want a high-powered career, then the nuclear family empowers a woman to achieve her goals in life.

Men generally do value money and power more than their families. Not only is it culturally expected, but there are hundreds of cultural references to childhood angst at a missing father, always at work. This is the "advantage" of the traditional nuclear family...the man can neglect his family to bring home the bacon, and thus gain power in society.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



We see this as men flock to fields that have insane hours and high pay, both blue and white collar. Finance, top-level executives, crab fishing, trucking...all fields that pay considerably more than comparable woman-dominated jobs, and all demand that you spend long periods of time away from those you love.

Even in my field, women tend to take hospital jobs near their homes, enabling them to care for kids and grandkids while still making $40-50k/year. Men tend to take service engineer positions that service hospitals, which involve travelling across multiple states/countries every day for weeks on end, but pays close to six-figures.

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Did this study control for Feminism, as in all the women surveyed were Feminists?

No. But we could also look at Sweden, which has both the highest number of stay-at-home Dads and the highest divorce rate in the world.

Do you have evidence to suggest that Feminists have a lower stay-at-home-dad divorce rate than the general US and Swedish populations?

[Zsych]

I remember reading that Swedish women got some kind of stipend if they got divorced and didn't have their own income so that they wouldn't need a man. I wonder if the reverse is true... Also interesting to support ideals through taxes. People will often choose not to find ways to make a situation work and get along, when they don't have to.

I think that's often what the focus on wanting a lot of money boils down to 'Having a support structure through money and services that it can buy, that lets you not get along, not play the game fairly or respect people'. A traditional low income man doesn't have many options either, but rich people do, and the rich are who people want to emulate, as if copying some external qualities increases your chances of success or happiness in life.

[Vagrant]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	True. Feminists are like homosexuals. Non reproducing duds.

What? You firing blanks son? Placing your insecurities on somebody else?

	Of course the question is how such women persist in the population beyond the first generation. Perhaps the price to pay of having highly masculine sons is feminist daughters. If a man were to claim he was not a man but was in fact a tree, he would be locked up. So too with feminists. A mental disorder where women claim not to be women.

SON, PUT THE ACID DOWN.

All joking aside, you're shitting me, right?

	You seem to have this mentality that, in order to be "for" womens rights you must be "against" women in a traditional role.

That's not what she's been saying at all -- She's been saying that typically Republicans only reinforce the nuclear family role, usually at the expense of other personal freedoms. She simply is vouching for having all options open to a woman.

[Clueless]

Here's what this thread boils down to: It's all gotta get done!

It would seem that many feminists would prefer to take a short-sighted and simplified view of reality. If kids and a household are to exist, someone must cook, clean, and raise brats. Doesn't matter whether mommy does it, daddy does it, or whether it's outsourced to a third party. Either way it's gotta get done.

The modern feminist wants complete say so over her body (perfectly fine, I'm on board) which means that she can end a pregnancy at her sole discretion without input from the biological father, or she can keep the child and demand child support, again without input from the biological father. This isn't exactly a balanced division of rights with regard to say-so over the product of human conception, but hey it's the female who must serve as living incubator for 9 months so there's really no other way to have it.

So the rub seems to be that the modern feminists would like some additional special provisions to further mitigate the years long burden of child-rearing. It apparently is not sufficient to have the unilateral choice of either abortion or forced financial subsidization from the father.

So a woman today has the following options with regard to gender-based difference (child bearing):

• Have no children through responsible behavior or abstinence
• Have no children by exercising the right to abort pregnancy
• Have children with a husband who's open to equally sharing household burdens and career pursuits
• Have children with a husband who embraces "traditional family gender roles"
• Have children with no husband, but with benefit of forced monetary contributions from the biological father
• Have children with or without husband and with or without forced monetary contributions from the biological father while engaging in a career in which adequate income is present to outsource much of the child-rearing and household maintenance burden

So I'm confused. In what way exactly has society or is society looking to "short-change" women? Feminists please explain what more you believe society owes you just because you have a uterus.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Ravendicon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A lot has been made lately of the "War on Women" supposedly being waged --mostly by Republicans -- across the US. Most of this so-called war revolves around abortion rights and the pro-choice movement, which is being undermined by legislation on both the state and federal level. However, there are fewer examples of any kind of direct attack on women's rights or entitlement programs like welfare. While I'm deeply troubled by the attack on abortion rights, I'm not sure I'm in love with this overblown "War on Women" concept. It reeks of hyperbole. It implies that Republicans are attacking women's rights because they are part of the He-man Woman Haters Club, and not just ignorant fools. Do you believe there really is a war on women? If so, what's the endgame here? What are the republicans hoping to achieve, if anything, beyond abortion repeal? Will it work, or backfire?

It's just the latest in a multiple decade long list of liberal lies. Democrats are only interested in defending women who are born and liberal.

The fact is that abortion kills hundreds of thousands of women every year, and pro-life folks (usually republican) are trying to defend those women.

But, rather than engaging in civil debate, liberals prefer to demagogue and lie in their political public life.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So I'm confused. In what way exactly has society or is society looking to "short-change" women? Feminists please explain what more you believe society owes you just because you have a uterus.

Equal treatment. Crazy, huh?

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Equal treatment. Crazy, huh?

I believe I've just highlighted the fact that you get better than equal treatment with regard to the child-bearing burden as it stands now. Compare existing female choices with existing male choices please.

You seem to be upset that biology can't be changed. Sorry, nothing society can do about that at the moment.

[Seriously]

You do get that we are still fighting for the right to have abortions and presently in Texas you have to have an implement inserted inside you so you can hear the heartbeat before you can have an abortion, right?

And you do realize that quite a few men are "dead beat dads". ie they don't pay that child support we women make so much supposed money off of because, you know, that's how we roll.

[MacGuffin]

I want the same opportunities for my daughter as if she were a son.

Except to grow up and be a douchebag on an internet forum.*






*that's MY job!

[Polymath20]

Any legislation which applies to any group is discrimination, whether that group is based on age, gender, race, religion... yadda yadda yadda.

Even laws that are meant to protect one group discriminate against all other groups.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nuclear families do not preclude the woman from taking low-intensity part-time work. It does preclude the woman from becoming a high-powered executive or lawyer.

How one can utter this sentence and claim they are not for limiting women's autonomy boggles the mind.

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip rationalization about why limiting other people's choices is okay> To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Uh.....that song isn't glamorizing the workaholic father, it's the exact opposite.

	We see this as men flock to fields that have insane hours and high pay, both blue and white collar. Finance, top-level executives, crab fishing, trucking...all fields that pay considerably more than comparable woman-dominated jobs, and all demand that you spend long periods of time away from those you love.

Ah, the old myth that whatever men choose to do is hard, and whatever women choose to do is easy. Did you know that the field of secretary use to be male-dominated job, something women were unconsidered unsuited for? But, as soon as women started entering the field, suddenly it was considered menial. Try being a night nurse and tell me the hours are easy and non-stressful. Look at the factory work dominated by women during the industrial revolution, and in modern times in China. Women working long long hours. Why don't they work higher paying jobs, you ask? Maybe it's because they've been precluded (see above) from those jobs. Women also are often forced to take lower-paying jobs near their children because children must be cared for, and currently most single-parents are women. Here is your reasoning:

1. Society should (and does) limit women to choices where they must take on the role of caretaker.
2. Women want to be caretakers because more women take on caretaker roles, and even when they work, they "choose" to take on lower-paying jobs to accommodate caretaking.

This is called circular reasoning. If 1 is true, 2 must be true; so you can't use 2 to be proof that 1 is true.

Actually, it sounds to me like you are jealous of the care taking role. Seeing it as more rewarding than anything else. And hey, if that's your life calling, no one is stopping you.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You do get that we are still fighting for the right to have abortions and presently in Texas you have to have an implement inserted inside you so you can hear the heartbeat before you can have an abortion, right?

But the fact remains you have the option, yes? Even in Texas. My viewpoint is predicated on the notion that abortion remains legal and at the sole discretion of the female. So long as this is the case I can't figure what all the whining is about. Don't want to listen to the hearbeat? Have the abortion in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas......you get the idea.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And you do realize that quite a few men are "dead beat dads". ie they don't pay that child support we women make so much supposed money off of because, you know, that's how we roll.

How is society to blame for this and in what way is this a unique female disadvantage? Seems to me the choice is no different here than for a male, don't risk pregnancy with a low-character sex partner. Simple enough?

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't understand why you think this. You seem to have this mentality that, in order to be "for" womens rights you must be "against" women in a traditional role. This makes no sense. Choosing to fill a "traditional" (your words) female role is as valid a choice as any of the others you've listed. Traditional families do not preclude freedom of choice. There is no reason they cannot coexist with such freedom.

Perhaps the difference is you and I and Distance have differing notions of what "traditional nuclear family" means -- and obviously Distance and I have similar notions.

I'm having no difficulty understanding what she wrote and I haven't any idea why you seem to be misunderstanding it, much less reading in a mentality that I'm just not seeing in what Distance wrote.

She hasn't painted choosing to fill a traditional female role as invalid any more than I have. Any form of feminism that would do that is one I would automatically reject, since it removes choice, which is what feminism is presumably supposed to be advocating.

Maybe it's time to back up a moment and discuss how "traditional family" has been and is used in public discourse, and by whom, and for what purpose?

I'll give you a little hint here -- in my experience it doesn't make sense to remove it from a particular religious view. Start with Ephesians 5, around the 20th verse and after.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Perhaps the difference is you and I and Distance have differing notions of what "traditional nuclear family" means -- and obviously Distance and I have similar notions. I'm having no difficulty understanding what she wrote and I haven't any idea why you seem to be misunderstanding it, much less reading in a mentality that I'm just not seeing in what Distance wrote. She hasn't painted choosing to fill a traditional female role as invalid any more than I have. Any form of feminism that would do that is one I would automatically reject, since it removes choice, which is what feminism is presumably supposed to be advocating. Maybe it's time to back up a moment and discuss how "traditional family" has been and is used in public discourse, and by whom, and for what purpose? I'll give you a little hint here -- in my experience it doesn't make sense to remove it from a particular religious view. Start with Ephesians 5, around the 20th verse and after.

I have no interest in discussing religion because religion has no place in the discussion of social structure aimed at resulting in the highest practical degree of gender equality. What I don't understand is what seems to be the presence of "anger" over biology. Biology just is, it's nobody's fault and at the moment nothing can be done to change it. Get over it and let's move on.

Once again I'll reiterate my viewpoint is predicated upon legal access to abortion at the sole discretion of the female.

There's no point in discussing gender roles beyond that. It's all gotta get done, no matter which party or gender ultimately performs in which role. Make your choices and live with them. Very simple.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just because a group "embraces" traditional gender roles is in no way limiting to either gender.

Therein lies the problem. It's not about a group merely "embracing" traditional gender roles.

It's about groups trying to hem everyone else in according to their traditions.

Been there. Lived that.

It's one of the top 3 reasons I was an atheist for years.

	Don't want to "cook, clean, and raise brats"? Fine. Keep your legs closed or hire a nanny and housekeeper.

Are you really clueless (uh no pun intended) about how incendiary a comment like the bit in bold is? What do you suggest? Married women put an aspirin between their knees? I'm assuming that's not at all what you meant.

Are you aware where that phrase "keep your legs closed" typically comes from and how it's been used historically against women (not men of course).

Are you aware how phrases like that come up when the subject is what women should be allowed to do with their lives?

Because you know, we all need to get permission from someone else...but men don't.

It would be worth your while, if you really want to understand where Distance and I seem to be coming from, to take a few minutes to review the history of Second Wave Feminism.

I have no idea how old Distance is, but I'm old enough to have lived through that and I don't care to repeat it. I'm sure there's at least a Wikipedia overview on that subject it might even be informative and brief enough to be of some use here.