[zibber]

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Even when I stayed home I didn't watch daytime television. I have never watched Oprah and I have never had a dick.

Just to specify - I have completely checked out of this debate and my previous post was not actually intended to add meaningful content.

And I'm not constantly trying to put your points down. I don't remember another instance besides this misunderstanding.

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Men that don't care about being emasculated aren't threatened by a woman that out earns them.

Real men(tm) can't be emasculated by a paycheck.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes I live on my own. I don't clean much, some female friends clean for me actually from time to time. And as for cooking I like to make pizzas and cakes, except that I'm clueless. I eat italian pastas, sandwiches, hamburgers and frozen stuffs most of the time.

That doesn't sound very clueless to me, just lazy.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You forgot the order. Women's place is in the house. The great things of the past should remain, including traditional gender roles.

No I didn't forget anything. The fact that it's tradition doesn't mean it's right. Slavery ring a bell? Wasn't right but you wouldn't be where you are now without it having happened.

Traditional gender roles weren't all you're attempting to make them out to be.

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You forgot the order. Women's place is in the house. The great things of the past should remain, including traditional gender roles.

If you can find a woman of this type, who is happy with this scenario, more power to you. However, I don't think this scenario appeals to the vast majority of women anymore, and you will not succeed in forcing them into such a life, no matter how much you may want it.

[blackLieutenant]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Real men(tm) can't be emasculated by a paycheck.

Real men (r) don't like women having any kinda power above them. True story.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That doesn't sound very clueless to me, just lazy.

Yeah I'm very lazy.

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No I didn't forget anything. The fact that it's tradition doesn't mean it's right.

Ok I got it.

	Slavery ring a bell? Wasn't right but you wouldn't be where you are now without it having happened.

You should get out of your typical American ethnocentrism. Like I said earlier, black people have always been free in Europe, and the western africans that have been enslaved don't represent all black people in the world and history. You know that most black people in history didn't go through slavery, right ? And that most black people during the transatlantic slave trade period were living their lives peacefully and didn't go to slavery in the Americas ?

You should stop thinking black people need whiteys to exist or survive.

	Traditional gender roles weren't all you're attempting to make them out to be.

What I am missing ?

---------- Post added 09-28-2011 at 04:39 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you can find a woman of this type, who is happy with this scenario, more power to you. However, I don't think this scenario appeals to the vast majority of women anymore, and you will not succeed in forcing them into such a life, no matter how much you may want it.

I already did, and right now I'm seeing someone that is pretty traditional too. And I met her in Montreal, feminist capital of the world... crazy. She's religious, it looks like religious women are the last decent women in the western world.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Real men (r) don't like women having any kinda power above them. True story.

Insecure men don't like women having that kind of power over them.

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

You should get out of your typical American ethnocentrism. Like I said earlier, black people have always been free in Europe, and the western africans that have been enslaved don't represent all black people in the world and history. You know that most black people in history didn't go through slavery, right ? And that most black people during the transatlantic slave trade period were living their lives peacefully and didn't go to slavery in the Americas ? You should stop thinking black people need whiteys to exist or survive.

You should stop telling me what I think. Blacks in America haven't need "whitey" in more than a century. Funny how here it's shoved in the whites' faces though.

You should try getting out of the misogynistic viewpoints you have and realize that that was the past and just because it was traditional doesn't mean it was right or just or fair. Men aren't the only ones who can do a job and do it well. Just as women aren't the only ones who can effectively raise children and keep house.

This is not a new concept. Matriarchal societies are found throughout history. Just because a man is typically physically stronger than a female doesn't mean he's the best for leading family life or society. If you think men run things oh so well take a look at American Politics and its history.


Edit:

My point was that traditionally some people were slaves, (black/white/green/purple/color is irrelevant). Born into it, grew up in it, married other slaves, had more children into the practice. It's not right but it's traditional in some places. Therefore because something is traditional doesn't mean it's right or just.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah I'm very lazy.

This suddenly makes a lot of sense. It use to be that women were taught domestic tasks, but not the necessary skills to bring in their own income. Today, women are taught domestic tasks and how to bring in income, whereas men are taught income-skills, but little in the way of domestic tasks. Which means certain men (lazy ones) are now dependent on women. Now, personally, I would learn how to take care of my own house if I were in such a situation. Certainly seems like less of an effort than trying to shame the rest of society into do things your way.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why ? Women entering the workplace decreased everybody's purchasing power actually.

Basic economics here:

More people working => More being produced => More goods => more wealth. Since real wealth is measured in goods.

[blackLieutenant]

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Insecure men don't like women having that kind of power over them.

It's not insecurity, it's sexuality. When women say they like to have a strong or tall man with them, is it insecurity too ?

	This is not a new concept. Matriarchal societies are found throughout history.

There are like three matriarchal societies in world history, so it should be the norm ?

	Just because a man is typically physically stronger than a female doesn't mean he's the best for leading family life or society.

Men have more authority and presence.

	If you think men run things oh so well take a look at American Politics and its history.

Great history, it is.

	My point was that traditionally some people were slaves, (black/white/green/purple/color is irrelevant). Born into it, grew up in it, married other slaves, had more children into the practice. It's not right but it's traditional in some places. Therefore because something is traditional doesn't mean it's right or just.

I know but some traditional things are good and essential to keep, like traditional gender roles.

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

This suddenly makes a lot of sense. It use to be that women were taught domestic tasks, but not the necessary skills to bring in their own income. Today, women are taught domestic tasks and how to bring in income, whereas men are taught income-skills, but little in the way of domestic tasks. Which means certain men (lazy ones) are now dependent on women. Now, personally, I would learn how to take care of my own house if I were in such a situation. Certainly seems like less of an effort than trying to shame the rest of society into do things your way.

I'm not depedant of women. I pay women or employees to do these jobs, that's all. For 10bucks, my laundry is done every week, and it creates jobs.

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Basic economics here: More people working => More being produced => More goods => more wealth. Since real wealth is measured in goods.

No-no-no.

Basic economics :
More people "looking" for jobs => pressure on salaries => decrease of salaries (while prices staying the same or even increasing) => loss of purchasing power.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Basic economics : More people "looking" for jobs => pressure on salaries => decrease of salaries (while prices staying the same or even increasing) => loss of purchasing power.

Monetary neutrality tells us that in the long run the only thing that matters is the amount produced. All goods produced must go to households at some point, so we measure their wealth in those goods. If more is produced, then households have more. Else, what do you suppose happens to all that extra production?

[JustMel]

Three, really? You sure about that?

Some of these still existing societies are the Mosuo, Yao, Miao and Tan peoples in China, the Chiang people of Tibet, the Minangkabau of Sumatra, the Ainu of Japan, the Trobrianders of Melanesia in the Pacific, the Khasi, Garo and Nayar of India, the Bantu, Akan and Ashanti peoples in Africa, the Berbers and Tuareg of North Africa, the Arawak peoples of South America, the Cuna and Juchitanians of Central America, the Hopi and Pueblo peoples as well as the Iroquois peoples of North America, just to name the main ones. All of them are in danger nowadays of losing their traditional cultures – or have already lost them. I have portrayed them in their socio-cultural and historical context, according to the anthropological evidence available, in my major work called Matriarchy and, additionally, have published a monography Matriarchy in Southern China. All the sources I have used are given in these books.

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

[blackLieutenant]

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Monetary neutrality tells us that in the long run the only thing that matters is the amount produced. All goods produced must go to households at some point, so we measure their wealth in those goods. If more is produced, then households have more. Else, what do you suppose happens to all that extra production?

This is a ridiculous way to measure households wealth. It looks like measuring companies performance instead.

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Three, really? You sure about that? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You got my point. Even if there are not 3 but 15, it does not compare with the hundreds of thousands that humanity had known since earliest human history.

[plink]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not depedant of women. I pay women or employees to do these jobs, that's all.

I thought you said women belonged in their homes. Why are you providing them with jobs outside their homes?

Also, if you are incapable of doing something and pay someone else to do it, you are dependent on that person to do that job. Sort of like how I can't deliver a letter to California myself. I'm dependent on the post office to do that for me. You do not know how to cook. You do not know how to clean. You do not know how to do laundry. You pay people to do it. Therefore, you are dependent upon those people to do those jobs.

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant
	For 10bucks, my laundry is done every week, and it creates jobs.

If women are stealing jobs from men, why are you creating jobs for them? Why aren't you paying men to do these chores for you?

[blackLieutenant]

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

I thought you said women belonged in their homes. Why are you providing them with jobs outside their homes? Also, if you are incapable of doing something and pay someone else to do it, you are dependent on that person to do that job. Sort of like how I can't deliver a letter to California myself. I'm dependent on the post office to do that for me. You do not know how to cook. You do not know how to clean. You do not know how to do laundry. You pay people to do it. Therefore, you are dependent upon those people to do those jobs.

Yeah so what ? I'm not dependant on women as a gender, but I'm definitely dependant on people that provide my food etc...

	If women are stealing jobs from men, why are you creating jobs for them? Why aren't you paying men to do these chores for you?

I'm not a monster, I'm happy to create jobs. It's the entrepreneur speaking.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not a monster, I'm happy to create jobs. It's the entrepreneur speaking.

Which is it? Happy to make jobs for women, or happy with women in the home, not working?

It can't be both.

[blackLieutenant]

	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.
	Which is it? Happy to make jobs for women, or happy with women in the home, not working? It can't be both.

I'm happy to create jobs for anyone that needs it (males or females), but yeah I still think women should stay at home. And if I create jobs for liberal feminist women (ugh) I'm still happy to be part of the guys who funded her salary.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm happy to create jobs for anyone that needs it (males or females), but yeah I still think women should stay at home. And if I create jobs for liberal feminist women (ugh) I'm still happy to be part of the guys who funded her salary.

So you argue that women should stay at home, but gladly give them money to not stay at home?

That's hypocrisy.

[blackLieutenant]

	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.
	So you argue that women should stay at home, but gladly give them money to not stay at home? That's hypocrisy.

That's called caring for the economy. I can't force women staying at home, if they work, they work, I can't do shit about it. Women working itself is not the problem, it's the fact that working mothers only have 1 kid per family, leave their family life to the garbage, ruin the education of our future generations and ruin society's stability/future.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You got my point. Even if there are not 3 but 15, it does not compare with the hundreds of thousands that humanity had known since earliest human history.

No, those were just the fifteen I found all in one place before I ended up too busy with something else to continue looking.

To repeat myself yet again, just because it's been the norm doesn't mean it's right for everyone. Hell it doesn't even mean it's right for most. Just because it is the way it is doesn't mean it has to or even should stay that way. I think you just like to think it should to further your own ego and justify being lazy and hypocritical.

---------- Post added 09-28-2011 at 05:52 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's called caring for the economy. I can't force women staying at home, if they work, they work, I can't do shit about it. Women working itself is not the problem, it's the fact that working mothers only have 1 kid per family, leave their family life to the garbage, ruin the education of our future generations and ruin society's stability/future.

As opposed to men being able to walk away from their families for the younger version of the wife they already have at which point women either had to go to work or starve. This working mother has raised 11 and had 30+ foster kids.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's called caring for the economy. I can't force women staying at home, if they work, they work, I can't do shit about it. Women working itself is not the problem, it's the fact that working mothers only have 1 kid per family, leave their family life to the garbage, ruin the education of our future generations and ruin society's stability/future.

So why aren't men stepping up and bringing home the money for the women to not have to work? It's not like this is all women's fault, is it?

Is it?

[blackLieutenant]

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

No, those were just the fifteen I found all in one place before I ended up too busy with something else to continue looking. To repeat myself yet again, just because it's been the norm doesn't mean it's right for everyone. Hell it doesn't even mean it's right for most. Just because it is the way it is doesn't mean it has to or even should stay that way. I think you just like to think it should to further your own ego and justify being lazy and hypocritical.

No no no, I don't want women to do it because I don't want to, but I think a woman as a whole should be able to care of her familiy and be family-oriented. It's more feminine from my POV.

	As opposed to men being able to walk away from their families for the younger version of the wife they already have at which point women either had to go to work or starve.

Men should not go away, and leave their wives with the kids alone.

	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.
	So why aren't men stepping up and bringing home the money for the women to not have to work? It's not like this is all women's fault, is it?

This is what we've done since humanity exist, but feminists found a way to make women (already) hard lives even harder and more complicated. You can thank them.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is what we've done since humanity exist, but feminists found a way to make women (already) hard lives even harder and more complicated. You can thank them.

So you think women didn't work outside the home before the women's movement, and after the women's movement, women aren't able to stay home?

[blackLieutenant]

	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.
	So you think women didn't work outside the home before the women's movement, and after the women's movement, women aren't able to stay home?

Nooo.... But feminists had made a social obligation for women to go work, go to college, when a lot of them would prefer to stay at home peacefully.

Even if women can stay at home today, it's not the same. Because women did go on the workplace in the 70s, salaries decreased, while prices rised, now some couples can barely live with two incomes, which is crazy, and impossible during the 40s or 50s (traditional times).

To go back is impossible, but women can still go after men that have secent salaries to be housewives. It has become a luxury to be one.

[plotthickens]

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

Nooo.... But feminists had made a social obligation for women to go work, go to college, when a lot of them would prefer to stay at home peacefully. Even if women can stay at home today, it's not the same. Because women did go on the workplace in the 70s, salaries decreased, while prices rised, now some couples can barely live with two incomes, which is crazy, and impossible during the 40s or 50s (traditional times). To go back is impossible, but women can still go after men that have secent salaries to be housewives. It has become a luxury to be one.

So you think that women didn't work outside the home before the 1970's?